Magox Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 As were his stats and wins against the Raiders, Pats and Eagles at home, he was our guy, happy days were thought to be here again ... you seem to have perfect selective hindsight - don't you remember? All signs were pointing upward on the Fitz-o-meter at that time ... and he was being paid far below starting QB numbers. We all now know that Fitz fizzled once he autographed the deal, but if he hadn't, he could have commanded more at years end. It was a show of good faith and a way of locking him up more than a panic move. It's as if you didn't read hardly anything I said.
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 As were his stats and wins against the Raiders, Pats and Eagles at home, he was our guy, happy days were thought to be here again ... you seem to have perfect selective hindsight - don't you remember? All signs were pointing upward on the Fitz-o-meter at that time ... and he was being paid far below starting QB numbers. We all now know that Fitz fizzled once he autographed the deal, but if he hadn't, he could have commanded more at years end. It was a show of good faith and a way of locking him up more than a panic move. Whether you want to call it "good faith" or "panic", the Bills were premature and did not wait it out for a more complete evaluation. It looks like everyone agrees that they "bought high", at the peak of Fitzpatrick's success. It's not the only time either. See: Jauron, Dick.
eball Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Whether you want to call it "good faith" or "panic", the Bills were premature and did not wait it out for a more complete evaluation. It looks like everyone agrees that they "bought high", at the peak of Fitzpatrick's success. It's not the only time either. See: Jauron, Dick. No, everyone doesn't. Even last season, Fitz performed at the level of his contract -- in fact, he posted the highest QB rating of his career (17th in the NFL). It is a fallacy that the Bills drastically overpaid for Fitz when they extended him.
Magox Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 No, everyone doesn't. Even last season, Fitz performed at the level of his contract -- in fact, he posted the highest QB rating of his career (17th in the NFL). It is a fallacy that the Bills drastically overpaid for Fitz when they extended him. So you are saying that Fitz deserves to be paid an NFL starting QB's pay? Is that what you are telling us?
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Exactly my point. They were hoping to get a bargain. But it accomplished a few things, it just turned out to be a wrong assumption. It wasn't obviously stupid. He and the team were playing very, very well. It wasn't a rookie or out of nowhere, it was a continuation of the progress made from the previous year. There really wasn't a great or obvious reason to think it wasn't going to continue. It showed the team they had a lot of confidence in him and they are willing to pay for progress and achievement. It wasn't a crippling amount of money. He had been outplaying his contract for about 20 games at that point. His teammates absolutely loved him. It just turned out to be a wrong decision. Every time you re-up someone early you're hoping to get a bargain.
eball Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 So you are saying that Fitz deserves to be paid an NFL starting QB's pay? Is that what you are telling us? What I'm telling you is that based upon his previous 20 games, the Bills viewed Fitz as a guy who was "coming into his own" as a starting QB and proceeded to pay him AVERAGE starting QB money. Fitz then played poorly the remainder of that season, but returned to an AVERAGE level last season. The Bills, as an organization, decided that Fitz's AVERAGE starting QB play was not good enough for them so they asked him to take a pay cut and be the backup/mentor. He refused, and then went to take backup/mentor money in Tennessee.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 It's not harping, Kelly made a comment and I just simply pointed out the Fitz signing and then that's how the discussion ensued. Also, in regards to Kelly's comment that he would of cost more. I just don't buy that, it's not as if Fitz's lack of arm strength, pedigree and mechanics would have been a secret that they would of uncovered after wards, it was right there for everyone to see. But it wasn't. He was at the top of the league or near it at that point. He would have finished with the best season in Bills history at QB and the team would have been in the playoffs. At that point, there really wasn't a LOT of reason to believe it wasn't going to continue. He wasn't nearly as inaccurate as he played the last year and a half. People are really distorted in their memory, IMO, as to what he was doing then. His arm strength wasn't an issue (it never really was). His accuracy wasn't an issue. His ill-time throws wasn't an issue. He was playing great. Now, granted, no one should have bet on the fact he was going to be that good all the time. I'm sure it was clear to everyone including Buddy that he was on a pretty hot streak. But he was playing very solid football. With 1,477 yards passing, 12 TDs, 6 INTS, he was in the top 10 in four statistical categories, including being tied for fifth in TDs. The team was 4-2 and if he continued, we would have been 11-5 or 10-6 and probably made the playoffs. And he was playing with a bunch of nobodies.
Magox Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 What I'm telling you is that based upon his previous 20 games, the Bills viewed Fitz as a guy who was "coming into his own" as a starting QB and proceeded to pay him AVERAGE starting QB money. Fitz then played poorly the remainder of that season, but returned to an AVERAGE level last season. The Bills, as an organization, decided that Fitz's AVERAGE starting QB play was not good enough for them so they asked him to take a pay cut and be the backup/mentor. He refused, and then went to take backup/mentor money in Tennessee. I and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of NFL "experts" and GM's disagree with your assessment, which is that Fitz played at an "AVERAGE" starting NFL QB level over the past two years. But it wasn't. He was at the top of the league or near it at that point. He would have finished with the best season in Bills history at QB and the team would have been in the playoffs. At that point, there really wasn't a LOT of reason to believe it wasn't going to continue. He wasn't nearly as inaccurate as he played the last year and a half. People are really distorted in their memory, IMO, as to what he was doing then. His arm strength wasn't an issue (it never really was). His accuracy wasn't an issue. His ill-time throws wasn't an issue. He was playing great. Now, granted, no one should have bet on the fact he was going to be that good all the time. I'm sure it was clear to everyone including Buddy that he was on a pretty hot streak. But he was playing very solid football. With 1,477 yards passing, 12 TDs, 6 INTS, he was in the top 10 in four statistical categories, including being tied for fifth in TDs. The team was 4-2 and if he continued, we would have been 11-5 or 10-6 and probably made the playoffs. And he was playing with a bunch of nobodies. I'm not talking about performance. I mentioned "pedigree", arm strength and mechanics. That has always been on full display for teams to see.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of NFL "experts" and GM's disagree with your assessment, which is that Fitz played at an "AVERAGE" starting NFL QB level over the past two years. I'm not talking about performance. I mentioned "pedigree", arm strength and mechanics. That has always been on full display for teams to see. And hence, why the contract was what it was and not exorbitant, and allowed the team an out if he didn't continue to perform well. It wasn't a franchise QB contract they handed out. It was an average starter contract.
KOKBILLS Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I'm not going to read back...But I was wondering how we got to a Fitz discussion in a thread about a LB vs LB trade... Not that I'm surprised of course...Just wondering...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I'm not going to read back...But I was wondering how we got to a Fitz discussion in a thread about a LB vs LB trade... Not that I'm surprised of course...Just wondering... It's pretty much the "all arguments between married couples are about money and sex" syndrome.
Magox Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 And hence, why the contract was what it was and not exorbitant, and allowed the team an out if he didn't continue to perform well. It wasn't a franchise QB contract they handed out. It was an average starter contract. I guess we're just not gonna agree.
eball Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I'm not going to read back...But I was wondering how we got to a Fitz discussion in a thread about a LB vs LB trade... Not that I'm surprised of course...Just wondering... Pretty sure it had something to do with Wanny's mustache.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I guess we're just not gonna agree. Cheers. I think we agree on most things. I don't think he played up to his average contract, he played worse, and I am glad he is gone. But I don't think the contract at the time was foolish at all, nor was it too much too soon. Only in retrospect is that true. At the time, they were trying to lock him up and not have to pay him 20 mil more if he kept it up. He would have stayed but he would have cost much more. And you would have loved him.
Justice Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 It's not harping, Kelly made a comment and I just simply pointed out the Fitz signing and then that's how the discussion ensued. Also, in regards to Kelly's comment that he would of cost more. I just don't buy that, it's not as if Fitz's lack of arm strength, pedigree and mechanics would have been a secret that they would of uncovered after wards, it was right there for everyone to see. I agree with your take on this matter, Magox. I'll take it even further. Forget the money. Forget the dollar amount and where it ranked as opposed to other starting QBs. Anyone that thinks it was a good idea to give Fitzpatrick a six year deal is completely clueless. You really believed Fitz was going to be your guy for six years? As if he suddenly will become more accurate and stronger armed as time passes. Please! Fitzy is a back up QB and at best a stop-gap type of guy. Two or three year deals are the most you give these guys and you never, I mean ever, sign them mid-season as if there was going to be some bidding war for his services at years' end.
DasNootz Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Average? Name me 10 teams who would have rather had Fitz as their starter last year? Here are mine: Jets, Arizona, KC, Browns, Jaguars... Tennessee?, Vikings?, Bucaneers? Dolphins?
eball Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I agree with your take on this matter, Magox. I'll take it even further. Forget the money. Forget the dollar amount and where it ranked as opposed to other starting QBs. Anyone that thinks it was a good idea to give Fitzpatrick a six year deal is completely clueless. You really believed Fitz was going to be your guy for six years? As if he suddenly will become more accurate and stronger armed as time passes. Please! Fitzy is a back up QB and at best a stop-gap type of guy. Two or three year deals are the most you give these guys and you never, I mean ever, sign them mid-season as if there was going to be some bidding war for his services at years' end. These contracts are rarely about the last 2-3 years. Anyway, we ALL agree Fitz wasn't what the Bills hoped he would be, and there's a new chapter to read now.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I agree with your take on this matter, Magox. I'll take it even further. Forget the money. Forget the dollar amount and where it ranked as opposed to other starting QBs. Anyone that thinks it was a good idea to give Fitzpatrick a six year deal is completely clueless. You really believed Fitz was going to be your guy for six years? As if he suddenly will become more accurate and stronger armed as time passes. Please! Fitzy is a back up QB and at best a stop-gap type of guy. Two or three year deals are the most you give these guys and you never, I mean ever, sign them mid-season as if there was going to be some bidding war for his services at years' end. It was basically two three year contracts. The first one was three years for 33 mil, that's 11 mil a year, middle of the pack for starters in this league. The second three years was for 26 mil. Less than 9 mil a season. They cut him if he is not good, it's a huge bargain if he is good. 9 mil of his guarantees were only if he was on the roster and he was hurt. The six-year extension tacks onto the expiration of his current deal. Therefore, Fitzpatrick is under contract at his original base salary ($3.22 million) for the remainder of 2011, and then the six-year deal kicks in, locking him up through the end of the 2017 season. Fitzpatrick will receive (or, possibly, has already received) a $10 million signing bonus. He'll also get a $5 million option bonus in March. That's $15 million of his $24 million guaranteed right there, and he'll get it within the next few months. The remaining $9 million in guarantees are only due to Fitzpatrick if he's on the roster but injured, per Brandt; that implies that if the Bills release him, there won't be anything else guaranteed to him. That's obviously huge. The new deal will pay Fitzpatrick $33 million over the first three years of the deal (2012 through 2014), and then will pay him the remaining $26 million over the final three years of the deal (2015 through 2017). This gives the Bills a little leeway if they're ready to move on from Fitzpatrick in the latter half of the deal, especially with the aforementioned lack of off-roster guarantees.
Kipers Hair Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Back on to the topic of this post - trading Sheppard. This comment from an Indy journalist terrifies me - Now, the Colts parted ways and got a guy in Sheppard who also knows the scheme and gives way more effort. Sheppard is a lot quicker than Hughes despite their similar stature. He won’t be out of position and can defend in coverage. Read more at http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2013/04/29/indianapolis-colts-what-team-is-getting-with-lb-kelvin-sheppard/?7PSdUW3J6XGBqi3D.99 "Sheppard is a lot quicker than Hughes".....Sweet Jebus what did we just trade for? Sheppard appeared to be running in wet cememt most of the time...what's this Hughes going to look like? Hopefully, he will cost us less....
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Back on to the topic of this post - trading Sheppard. This comment from an Indy journalist terrifies me - Now, the Colts parted ways and got a guy in Sheppard who also knows the scheme and gives way more effort. Sheppard is a lot quicker than Hughes despite their similar stature. He won’t be out of position and can defend in coverage. Read more at http://www.rantsport...UW3J6XGBqi3D.99 "Sheppard is a lot quicker than Hughes".....Sweet Jebus what did we just trade for? Sheppard appeared to be running in wet cememt most of the time...what's this Hughes going to look like? Hopefully, he will cost us less.... It sounds as if this guy just looked at stats and never saw Sheppard play.
Recommended Posts