YoloinOhio Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 Huh? The Bills released him, he was under contract. They released him because he chose not to restructure his contract and go elsewhere instead. They weren't going to pay him that much to be a backup, and the team had to move on at starter after the brutal season he had. If he wanted to stay as a backup, he could have done so, but not at the same price. I really don't blame him, or the team, for Fitz not being here now.
Coach Tuesday Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) They released him because he chose not to restructure his contract and go elsewhere instead. They weren't going to pay him that much to be a backup, and the team had to move on at starter after the brutal season he had. If he wanted to stay as a backup, he could have done so, but not at the same price. I really don't blame him, or the team, for Fitz not being here now. I don't want to derail this thread anymore than I already have, but they absolutely mishandled that. Why declare in January 2013 that Fitz is not going to be a starter? Why not tell him and everyone else that he'll have to compete for his job, and then let him compete with EJ? If he loses out in the competition, you can approach him about a paycut and it's a much more constructive conversation. If he wins the competition, then EJ learns from him for a year, which is what they intended to happen with Kolb. There was no reason to declare that Fitz was done as the starter at that point, unless it was for the purpose of making him take a paycut (which backfired) or selling tickets (which shouldn't inform their football decisions). I mean maybe what happened was that Nix got catfished into telling the world that they would be moving on from Fitz, in that phony tape-recorded conversation, and then they were boxed in. If that's the case... I can't even. Edited September 2, 2014 by Coach Tuesday
BillsBytheBay Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) Huh? The Bills released him, he was under contract. yea.... I'm remembering it funny for some reason... I think they asked him if he would be a back up, and he wouldn't or something. You are right, I just remember there being more to it. Just looked it up. Released after he wouldn't take a pay cut. Edited September 2, 2014 by JaxBills
YoloinOhio Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 I don't want to derail this thread anymore than I already have, but they absolutely mishandled that. Why declare in January 2013 that Fitz is not going to be a starter? Why not tell him and everyone else that he'll have to compete for his job, and then let him compete with EJ? If he loses out in the competition, you can approach him about a paycut and it's a much more constructive conversation. If he wins the competition, then EJ learns from him for a year, which is what they intended to happen with Kolb. There was no reason to declare that Fitz was done as the starter at that point, unless it was for the purpose of making him take a paycut (which backfired) or selling tickets (which shouldn't inform their football decisions). He was just so awful. I don't think they could have made it a possibility for him to start. Similar to the Schaub situation last year in Houston.
Coach Tuesday Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 He was just so awful. I don't think they could have made it a possibility for him to start. Similar to the Schaub situation last year in Houston. He has been named a starter for two teams since then. That can't be it.
YoloinOhio Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 yea.... I'm remembering it funny for some reason... I think they asked him if he would be a back up, and he wouldn't or something. You are right, I just remember there being more to it. Well, there was also the leaked phone conversation Nix had with the TB GM where he talked about how they needed to move on from Fitz. It just wasn't meant to be.
Coach Tuesday Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) Well, there was also the leaked phone conversation Nix had with the TB GM where he talked about how they needed to move on from Fitz. It just wasn't meant to be. See my edited post above. If we're sitting here scrambling to find a QB on the verge of the 2014 season because Buddy Nix got catfished some 18 months ago, that's beyond legendary. Edited September 2, 2014 by Coach Tuesday
YoloinOhio Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 He has been named a starter for two teams since then. That can't be it. He was a backup in TN and started because of injury. He is a starter in Houston because they have no one else. I am not saying he is terrible, but I think some forget how bad it was his last season here. Both parties needed to move on.
BillsBytheBay Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 Well, there was also the leaked phone conversation Nix had with the TB GM where he talked about how they needed to move on from Fitz. It just wasn't meant to be. he wouldn't take a pay cut, that's what I was hung up on.
symbiant Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 he wouldn't take a pay cut, that's what I was hung up on. Fitz wanted to move on and have some new scenery. And double dip on his salary.
John from Riverside Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 I don't want to derail this thread anymore than I already have, but they absolutely mishandled that. Why declare in January 2013 that Fitz is not going to be a starter? Why not tell him and everyone else that he'll have to compete for his job, and then let him compete with EJ? If he loses out in the competition, you can approach him about a paycut and it's a much more constructive conversation. If he wins the competition, then EJ learns from him for a year, which is what they intended to happen with Kolb. There was no reason to declare that Fitz was done as the starter at that point, unless it was for the purpose of making him take a paycut (which backfired) or selling tickets (which shouldn't inform their football decisions). I mean maybe what happened was that Nix got catfished into telling the world that they would be moving on from Fitz, in that phony tape-recorded conversation, and then they were boxed in. If that's the case... I can't even. Because the writing was on the wall that Fitz was not the answer and Fitz still felt you was a starter in this league....... The problem I have with Ryan Fitzpatrick is he comes up small when the pressure is on.....and we need a player that comes up big when the pressure is on...... For all of EJ's consistancies one thing he does do is pick up his game when the chips are done.....we have seen this from him before. I have no idea if Orton brings that quality or not.
GG Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 He was a backup in TN and started because of injury. He is a starter in Houston because they have no one else. I am not saying he is terrible, but I think some forget how bad it was his last season here. Both parties needed to move on. No they did not. That's not how good franchises are run. The Bills didn't want to pay $4 million to one back up, so they end up paying $3 million to another backup who never saw game action, only to pay another back up $5 million because he's their only option. Whether it was Nix or Whaley behind the scenes is immaterial. The Bills totally botched the QB position and are scrambling like crazy to correct it. With one hand tied behind their back. They were too cavalier with Fitz, when it was obvious that he would immediately become the best available back up QB on the market, the Bills had nobody behind him on the roster, they didn't make the trade for Alex Smith, and it was the weakest draft for QBs in a decade. Those were all knowns last spring. Yet, the Bills in a huffy fit released Fitzpatrick.
Billsguy Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 Is this a trick question? Kyle Orton was out of the league until some desperate team in WNY picked him up.
Dragonborn10 Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 They could've just kept Fitz, avoided the dead money hit and signed Byrd with the difference. Instead we've come full circle from Fitz with Marrone declaring "this is what we've been looking for" after his bosses paid hurricane prices on the eve of the season. These guys are really chasing right now, but ironically it's their own tails. Agreed. Fitz would have been the perfect back-up. Makes no sense. You can argue they didn't spend up to the cap anyways even with the dead money. But Fitz was better than Tuel and Lewis. If anyone disagrees they just hate Fitz and won't see him for what he is - a reasonably good playmaker who makes too many costly mistakes. Orton according to the stats makes less plays but also turns the ball over less.
BigPappy Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 Outside of Orton, of all the names I have seen, I would rather have Vinny Testaverde than any of the others.....And he hasn't played a down of football since 2007 and is 50 years old. BigPappy
YoloinOhio Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 Is this a trick question? Kyle Orton was out of the league until some desperate team in WNY picked him up. He was out of the league for 2 months, by choice, while at least one team was begging him to play and the team he left wished he didn't. So not sure of your point.
Dibs Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) ...... But assuming Fitz wouldn't take a paycut or restructure, if we're paying $7M not to have Fitz here, plus $5M to have Orton, that's $12M for 2014, instead of the $10M they could've paid to Fitz. A savings of $2M that could've been applied towards Byrd. Again, I don't claim to be an expert on this stuff by any means. I very well might have it wrong. You aren't wrong.....just not looking at the entire picture. The numbers you give here are correct, but are only for 2014. If you add in the 2013 numbers it starts to add up. In 2013, Fitz counted as a $3M dead cap hit. Had we not cut him his cap hit would have been about $10M. That is a $7M difference. The rollover cap rules mean that the extra $7M we had free under our cap last year due to cutting Fitz is directly added to the cap room we have this year......meaning that $2M saving you mentioned becomes a $5M loss($7M minus $2M). The same concept of salary savings rolling over would then apply to each future year. The Bills were between a rock and a hard place with regards to the Fitz contract. Due to the nature of the contract still being in the early stages, they needed Fitz to take a massive salary cut in order to justify him remaining on the roster. Even a $4M/year cut was leaving him counting as a $6M/year cost to the cap.....and the leaked Nix phone conversation made it clear that the Bills did not see Fitz as part of their long term plans. On Fitz's side, he already had his large(relatively speaking) signing bonus in the bank. It then becomes a question of whether he can make more money at another team....and potentially be a starter. I don't blame Fitz at all for not taking the salary cut and forcing the Bills hand(to cut him). The Fitz contract was a bad deciscion initially by the Bills. The best resolution(for the Bills and Fitz) was how things played out. Edited September 2, 2014 by Dibs
Coach Tuesday Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 You aren't wrong.....just not looking at the entire picture. The numbers you give here are correct, but are only for 2014. If you add in the 2013 numbers it starts to add up. In 2013, Fitz counted as a $3M dead cap hit. Had we not cut him his cap hit would have been about $10M. That is a $7M difference. The rollover cap rules mean that the extra $7M we had free under our cap last year due to cutting Fitz is directly added to the cap room we have this year......meaning that $2M saving you mentioned becomes a $5M loss($7M minus $2M). The same concept of salary savings rolling over would then apply to each future year. The Bills were between a rock and a hard place with regards to the Fitz contract. Due to the nature of the contract still being in the early stages, they needed Fitz to take a massive salary cut in order to justify him remaining on the roster. Even a $4M/year cut was leaving him counting as a $6M/year cost to the cap.....and the leaked Nix phone conversation made it clear that the Bills did not see Fitz as part of their long term plans. On Fitz's side, he already had his large(relatively speaking) signing bonus in the bank. It then becomes a question of whether he can make more money at another team....and potentially be a starter. I don't blame Fitz at all for not taking the salary cut and forcing the Bills hand(to cut him). The Fitz contract was a bad deciscion initially by the Bills. The best resolution(for the Bills and Fitz) was how things played out. Thanks - but what happens when you add in the Kolb contract and Tavaris Jackson signing bonus? Those were two more by-products of the botched Fitz release.
boyst Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 I cannot name too many backups now-a-days. Is Frank Reich still backing up?
Dibs Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) Thanks - but what happens when you add in the Kolb contract and Tavaris Jackson signing bonus? Those were two more by-products of the botched Fitz release. I thought about adding that in but I am long winded enough to start with lol. In the big scheme of things their costs are somewhat negligible. Kolb did cost us $2M(from memory).....so that can be added to the equation. Jackson was with the team when Fitz was here(so same either way).....Lewis was for junk money(no dead cap hit after cut).....and Tuel earns under the 53rd contract(so it doesn't count towards the cap). If we include Kolb's $2M we are still better off at this point by around $3M......and if we retain Orton for the next 2 seasons at his high $5/year price, 2016 will have roughly an extra $13M to spend under the cap(than had we stuck with Fitz). Edited September 3, 2014 by Dibs
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts