JohnC

Consistently shooting yourself in the foot leaves you limping.

Are you suggesting that this is the Alamo thread? I'm running out of ammo and I am feeling besieged. The Jets lost twice to a Rex coached team last year. The Jets clearly didn't conclude the season with a successful flourish. Not a good analogy. What was the problem? Fitz was Fitz. The central issue really isn't Fitz. Most of us know how he ranks as a qb. The central issue is what is his monetary value. That's the sticking point.

The highlighted area is the issue. If the team doesn't come close to the owner's expectations then Rex's job will be in jeopardy. For the owner the bigger issue isn't necessarily the record this season, it pertains more to whether the team is moving in the right direction, a la Sabres. If the owner sees a defense that is again confused and too many lapses in discipline then why wait for a third year expecting something different? I agree with you that changing staff because of impatience can be self-defeating. But if the team is not demonstrating progress then what is the rational for acting later rather than sooner. What's the saying?: When you are digging yourself in a hole the first corrective action is to stop digging. If Rex is holding the shovel when the hole continues to get deeper it won't be surprising that Pegula takes the shovel away from him. Side issue but related: Was Rex Whaley's first choice or did he just go along with the owner and Brandon's preference? The speculation is that Rex preferred Hue Jackson but Brandon and Pegula were enamored with the charming Rex? You are allowed to speculate on this question without risking your journalistic credibility.

By people who question the thread responding to the thread. It's called arithmetic. When you respond the numbers go up. If you don't like the topic and how others are responding then don't respond to it. There are other threads to respond to. Simple solution.

I'm not trying to be stubborn and resistant to your point of view but I don't understand what you are getting at. My basic point in this thread centers around Fitz's talent. When the discussion veered toward how Nix dealt with Fitz I have no problem with him letting Fitz go because he wouldn't take a cut despite taking a cap hit. The criticism that I have against Nix and the organization has little to do with the marginally talented Fitz but with the organization's lack of aggressiveness in pursuing a legitimate franchise qb. That applies before Fitz arrived on the scene, while he was on the scene and after he left the scene. My focus centers on the issue of talent for the most important position on the field and the historical lack of urgency in addressing that position. That's where I am coming from. If you are driving on a different road then that's okay. Taking different routes doesn't necessarily mean that you still can't get to the same destination, intentionally or unintentionally. I don't want to get off on the Rex tangent. I wasn't getting off on any tangent. The point is simple: Mediocrity is mediocrity. It gets you nowhere meaningful.

We are not going to totally agree on this issue. I am resolute in my position on Fitz and the caliber of qb he is. I am bedrock in agreement with Nix's stance that Fitz needed to take a pay cut and adjust his contract so that it was more in balance with his talent level. From a cap standpoint there is no doubt that the franchise took a cap hit (as you pointed out) with the dispatch of Fitz. My response to that loss of cap usage is so what! It certainly didn't have an impact on our backwater franchise's operation during the Wilson era. You have to remember that this was an organization that very often had a salary structure that was under the cap. So the loss of cap space wasn't as damaging as it would have been for a franchise that was seriously competing.. Where you and I do agree is that this second-rate organization under Nix and Whaley, too a lesser extent, didn't prioritize the position. The releasing of Fitz didn't need to be the trigger for what should have been a constant quest for a legitimate franchise qb until one was found. Even when Fitz was starting the quest should have been on full bore desperation mode to find a more accomplished starting qb, even if was to simply to get a good prospect in the pipeline. The drafting of Manuel, a third round caliber of prospect foolishly taken in the first round, was a desperate move by an incompetent GM who wanted to make sure that he had at least put someone in his corroded pipeline before he left the scene. As you noted the Jets are in a difficult cap situation. It's never been a point of disagreement between us because from the start of my multiple postings on this topic I have acknowledged it. When you sit in a small room with a gorilla and elephant you can't claim that you didn't notice that there were other sizable objects in the room with you. What's obvious is obvious. But the reality for the Jets and and all NFL teams that no matter what a team's cap situation is if you are negotiating with a qb with high-end talent you will do whatever you have to do to get the qb under contract. Even if that means cutting players or re-structuring qbs to make the numbers work. You know very well that this season if Tyrod demonstrates that he is a sterling qb the organization will do whatever needs to be done to get a deal done. That certainly isn't the case in NY because Fitz is worth that type of accommodating response. The underlying point on my excessive postings is simple: I consider Fitz to be a mediocre qb who is basically a decent backup who happens to start on a team with a void at that position. Is Fitz being underpaid as a starter? Absolutely. Are the Jets taking a risk with their hard-line negotiating stance? Absolutely. I still don't disagree with what they are doing. As I said before I believe a deal will get done but it will lean more towards the team position than the Fitz position. Fitz had a good year last year. I have acknowledged that point. However, I'm not going to over value his last year's stats as most people are doing. I firmly believe that that performance is an aberration from his standard that has been well established for a decade or so. I don't want to be too inflammatory but from my perspective what Rex is to coaching Fitz is to qbing: Wretched mediocrity that gets you nowhere. Simply fools gold.

I do agree with you that Nix/Whaley were not aggressive in pursuing qb options from the draft or from the market. What I see is that the failure was not how he handled Fitz (I have no problem with it and you do) but the failure was not having a plan in place before he made his decision on Fitz. Strategic thinking certainly wasn't a hallmark of Nix and the organization. What should have been a priority pursuit was a secondary issue.That is more of a main issue for me than the issue of Fitz, a middling qb. i.e. getting a more credible qb. Apparently Nix felt (and maybe Whaley also?) that it was more important to bolster the roster in general before addressing the qb position. (I heard him say that on WGR on more than one occasion.) Are the Jets taking taking a risk with their paltry offer to Fitz. Yes, and I have said so. That doesn't mean that they don't have a backup plan that you or I are aware of. I'm not even sure what Elway's plans are for qb for his SB team. What appears to me is that the Jets have made a basic calculation that they are willing to pay Fitz to his talent level. Evidently it isn't too high.

I appreciate the effort you took to research Fitz's contracts. But my basic point is simply that I don't believe Fitz is a starting caliber qb and I don't disagree with the Jets' position of establishing a low baseline commensurate with his talent level. You pointed out that Nix took a cap hit on his scattered armed qb. So essentially he decided to take a cap hit rather than pay Fitz a little more. What does that say about Nix's assessment of Fitz as a qb and to his value to the team? His recorded phone discussion bluntly indicated that he didn't have much regard for his qb. Are the Jets taking a major risk in this game of chicken with Fitz? Yes, because so far they don't have a viable option heading into the season. But that in itself is an indication that they are willing to take the risk of having a major void at qb rather than pay him at what he is asking for, which in itself is not much for a starting qb. Again, another indication of how much he is valued as a qb talent. That's my central point.

Beerball was right about you!

Maybe not for you but for plenty of people you don't have to go into statistical minutia to recognize mediocrity. If you can't handle that simple concept then that is your problem.

You are making too detailed of an analysis of Fitz and the contracts he has garnered from the multiple teams he has played for. The general conclusion and observation I take away from his contracts is that he is not a well valued qb, and never has been. It's as simple as that. He is not a franchise qb from a talent standpoint. He has been a vagabond qb for half a dozen teams who after a short stay moves on to his next stop. Fitz had a good statistical year last year. So what! Does it represent his talent level and body of work? Absolutely not. It was an aberration, not his usual standard. Fitz's last game in Buffalo that eliminated his team was a performance that Buffalo fans are well acquainted with. Do you believe that the Jet front office after watching that Fitz horrifying performance that sabotaged their playoff chances decided to be more committed to him and have it reflected by their contract offer? Let's get serious here. People are now criticizing Nix for his contract stance on Fitz which resulted in his departure. There is a lot of things to criticize him for but I'm not going to criticize him for taking a common sense position on offering a mediocre qb a contract commensurate with his talent lvel. Were the Bills a better team with or without Fitz? Who gives a dam about that meaningless question! Because with Fitz you still go nowhere. So why not try another option? If it doesn't work out, then try another option. Overpaying for someone who is not going to lead your team to anywhere consequential is pointless. So on this issue Nix was right on how he handled Fitz. I don't know if the Jets and Fitz will get a deal done. However, I understand their position and find it to be reasonable. The fundamental issue is paying a player commensurate to their talent level. That is what they are attempting to do here for a player where there is no other market interest.

Buddy Nix required Fitz to take a pay cut when he didn't have a viable option. Fitz declined and went on his way and I believe played for much less. (If you have the figure that Nix offered Fitz and what he eventually signed for with another team I would appreciate it. ) John Elway established a ceiling price for Osweiller and wasn't going beyond his established value figure. Elway did this with at the time no viable option at qb, and it can be argued that currently he is in a precarious position at qb. I'm sure you will agree that the Broncos should be considered by most people a SB contending team. Yet Elway was willing to leave a void at qb because he didn't believe he was getting a good value deal with Osweiller. The Jets certainly had to know what position they would be in when they mapped out their contract strategy for him. Then why did they take such a hard stance instead of being more flexible and demonstrating to Fitz that they valued him and wanted him? The answer is obvious. It seems that their value calculation is much different from outsiders. While many people continue to say they shouldn't do what others are suggesting their actions say otherwise.

It's obvious that you and I and many steadfast others have a fundamental disagreement on this issue that probably can't be reconciled. However, let me take another perspective on this issue. It's clear that the GM and organization were obviously aware that this qb and contract issue had to be addressed this offseason. I'm sure you will agree that making a decision on who your starter is going to be and the contract that he is going to garner is a critical issue that all organizations are going to put some thought into prior to when the decision will have to be made. This is also a major issue that the organization at the minimum would include the owner and at least keep him informed. The point I'm making is that this was an issue that included a lot of organizational thought. You can disagree with their stance but for them there are reasons why they are being so tough minded on this issue. As I told you a couple of times in prior posts watch what the Jets do and don't listen to the noise. They know what the market is for Fitz and they are going to respond accordingly. As I have said before there is a good chance that after the negotiating dances are done there will be a deal that will lean more towards the organization's position than the Fitz position.

Sure they want Fitz back. And if that happens it will be closer to the contract they are offering him than what Fitz is requesting. That's the point that you are reluctant to acknowledge. I'll say what I have often stated that Fitz is a backup caliber of qb who happens to start. He has played for six teams not because teams were enamored with him and coveted him but because he is a temporary fill in until a better option replaces him. Even the Bills were willing to let him go! When the Bills, a qb starved team, let you go over money that certainly isn't an indication that one is an indispensable talent. You make it seem as if you have the determinative analysis that makes it compelling for the Jets to retain Fitz and bountifully pay him. So far as reflected by how the Jets are handling this case they are not buying into your reasoning. You, Badol and the majority of posters on this issue are wedded to the notion that Fitz is indispensable to the Jets. I'm saying otherwise. Mediocre talent is more replaceable than you think. If you want a compelling argument for the position the Jets are taking go back and watch Fitz's last game in Buffalo. Enough said!

The Jets are making their own calculations regarding Fitz. There is no doubt that they have serious cap issues that impact the contract that they are willing to offer Fitz. The mistake that you and others are making on this issue is that you are acting as if Fitz is a key player as to whether the Jets succeed or fail. Apparently that isn't the view that the Jets are taking. With their paltry contract offer they are demonstrating to everyone how they value Fitz. In their eyes he is a mediocre bridge qb whose primary utility is to buy time until they can get a legitimate franchise qb. You bring up a good point as to where the Jets stand as a competitive team. They are an older team with a lot of veteran players who are costly and on the decline. That suggests to me that they understand that there is no short term gimmick fix. If that is the case then the front office realizes that a serious rebuild is inevitable and soon to begin. Last year the Jets were 10-6 and close to qualifying for a wildcard spot. But were they as good as their record might indicate? If you lost to the Bills and a Rex coached team twice in the same season you are not as good as the record might indicate. The fundamental difference I have with the majority of posters who are challenging my view on this issue is that I consider Fitz to be an adequate backup qb who isn't a legitimate starter in this league. For me his good stats last year were an aberration and don't reflect the caliber of qb he actually is. By the way the Jets are handling this Fitz issue they have the same viewpoint.

I don't disagree that the hiring of Rex added some excitement and a lively personality to the organization, especially after having to deal with the dour and insufferable Marrone. But my view is that the new display of excitement by the fans (reflected by ticket sales) had more to do with the new hope that the new ownership represented. To most people it brought back optimism to a recognized backwater and irrelevant franchise in the NFL. Also, the recognition that the new owner was committed to running the franchise much differently from the prior regime changed the dynamics in a positive direction for the customers. (Not criticizing the prior owner.) You can blame Brandon for the Rex hire. I don't. This was an ownership decision. He had the opportunity to consult with anyone he wanted inside and outside of the organization. That was his decision and so he has to be accountable for it. Maybe the next time he has to make a coaching decision he does a better job at doing his due diligence.

The Jets are dealing with the stringent cap situation that they are in. Fitz is certainly getting caught up in the Jets' financial squeeze. That's a reality that they are dealing with. That's often a reality in the NFL of today. What you and others have frantically said matters little. Watch what the Jets are doing. That's what is telling. That certainly is more relevant than your detailed analysis. If Fitz was other than a mediocre qb the Jets would get a deal done, even if they would have to make drastic roster cuts. Apparently they don't believe that the qb you fawn over is worth doing what is necessary to keep in the fold. I will say it again and I'm not saying it to be sarcastic: Fitz is an adequate backup qb who happens to start. Up to this point no team has an interest in him as a starter or even as a backup. You shouldn't be so bothered by what the Jets backup plan is. They are not fretting over to the extent you and others are. Let me remind you that Buddy Nix told Fitz that if he wanted to stay with the Bills he had to take a cut. He said no and was subsequently let go. He moved on and ending up signing for far less than what he would have received with Buffalo. The bottom line is that the so called paltry offer he is receiving from the Jets is more than what he would get if he signed with another team, assuming that there is an interest in him. And so far there isn't. The bottom line is that you and others keep forcefully insisting that the Jets can't do what they are doing. I don't take delight in bursting your imaginary balloon: They are currently doing what you say they can't do.

LOL! Even Captain Obvious can see that when you get on the same carousel with certain people that you will continue to go around in circles until you jump off.

Do you want to know what is also blatantly obvious? From a contract standpoint they are not placing much value on Fitz. It doesn't matter what you and I think. If they can't get a deal done that is closer to their terms than to Fitz's terms they will move on to the next option, whatever it may be. If they don't want to go with what they already have on the roster they will then go out and secure a similar mediocre talent. Mediocrity is very attainable---the market is full of garbage that can be had at a reasonable price. You insist on promoting the notion that Fitz is an invaluable gem that can't be replaced. That is not the case. He is what he has always been: A backup qb who periodically happens to start.

The cup he is drinking champagne out of is the SB cup. Not a bad job for someone you are trashing. When your team hasn't been in the playoffs for 16 years and the organization is goofy enough to hire a loud mouth huckster as their HC I wouldn't be so dismissive of the accomplishment of others.

How do you think that the Bills became a successful operation that was attractive to free agents? Magic. When he took over the football operation the team and franchise were in the dumps. The Bills became a success under his stewardship. It took time. It just didn't happen. Polian earned his success by good drafting and smart personnel moves. Over time the critical mass of good decisions built a foundation for sustained success.

The primary reason Buffalo has had difficulty signing free agents is that it has a history of being a dismally run operation. There are few limitations for any team to be as successful as any other team, regardless of the market size. The system is designed for parity. The failure of the Bills to attract players or be more successful relates more to their own ineptitude than to outside forces. Under Bill Polian the Bills were certainly an appealing destination for free agents. Prospective free agents knew that if they came to Buffalo they would have a chance to not only be in the playoffs but also have a good chance to be in the SB. My point is simply the Bills are what they are because of how incompetently they have managed their franchise.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you regarding the inevitability of the Broncos success, even after the acquisition of Manning. Demarcus Ware took less money from the Broncos but he still couldn't be considered a cheap player. There is nothing wrong with selecting one or two year ring chasers. But it has to be done judiciously. New England certainly has smartly signed a number of ring chasers. That shouldn't be a criticism when it is an aspect of the system. The Broncos under Elway have won a SB and have had success under Elway's stewardship (relatively short tenure). Elway hired Kubiak while the Bills hired Rex. Which organization was wiser making crucial hires? I'm not got to scoff at their achievements---I'm going to salute them.

Peyton was a high cost free agent qb who certainly was on the downside of his career and who had injury issues. It's easy to say now that it was an easy decision to make but there were certainly no guarantees that it would work out so well. My general point about Elway is that he has done an excellent job in being the steward of that SB winning franchise.

When you bring in a Rex you get Rex. That is what I am lamenting. It was an impetuous hire and an odd hire.