WFT signs QB Ryan Fitzpatrick to a one-year deal worth $10 million!... Oh, Oh, Oh Fitzmagic... ya knooowwwww!

[ColonialWBSkinsFan]

 

Just the latest in a LONG line of awful personnel decisions to bring in way-past-their-prime aging vet quarterbacks (see McNabb, Donovan;  Brunell, Mark;  Smith, Alex).

 

He played a grand total of 15 offensive snaps for his $10 million dollars... then again, **** it, it's not my money... at least this time we didn't also give up substantial draft picks in the process...

 

[dyst]

Just now, ColonialWBSkinsFan said:

at least this time we didn't also give up substantial draft picks in the process...

 

We’re improving

[Commander -JB-]

6 hours ago, DWinzit said:

If they are his families favorite team and he wasn't wearing any Bills gear than I don't see anything wrong with this

 

If he wore Bills gear then that's not right. Means he wore Bills gear longer than he did WFT gear to a game....and isn't he still officially collecting WFT checks?

He was paid 10 million dollars for the season.  Is WFT season not over?  He’s not under contract with anybody.

[veteranskinsfan]

Do we need to do anything else to officially disconnect from him now?  Or does the expiring contract take care of his official release?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

58 minutes ago, -JB- said:

He was paid 10 million dollars for the season.  Is WFT season not over?  He’s not under contract with anybody.

 

I think he's technically still under contract until the start of the new season.

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, ColonialWBSkinsFan said:

 

Just the latest in a LONG line of awful personnel decisions to bring in way-past-their-prime aging vet quarterbacks (see McNabb, Donovan;  Brunell, Mark;  Smith, Alex).

 

He played a grand total of 15 offensive snaps for his $10 million dollars... then again, **** it, it's not my money... at least this time we didn't also give up substantial draft picks in the process...

 

I'm not sure I would lump this in the same category.

 

Fitz was brought in to be a 1 year stop-gap, not a multi-year answer.  

 

Also, he was playing the best football of his career.  He was the best available QB from a pile of poop that was available after they failed to get Matt Stafford.  

 

The fact he got hurt was just bad luck.  He hasn't had an injury history. 

 

Whenever somebody makes a claim like this, I would like for them to please provide the alternative.  Based on who was available, who SHOULD they have signed?  I believe your choices are basically Dalton, Mitch, Teddy, maybe Darnold (though I think that would have required a trade, I don't remember)...  

 

Who SHOULD they have brought in? I'll hang up and wait for your answer.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

12 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I think he's technically still under contract until the start of the new season.

Yeah, you're right.  But, I mean, honestly, there are no more games to play, he's not going to be retained, I doubt he even had an exit interview.  He's most likely going to retire.

 

So you're TECHNICALLY right.  

 

But it don't matter a damn.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Yeah, you're right.  But, I mean, honestly, there are no more games to play, he's not going to be retained, I doubt he even had an exit interview.  He's most likely going to retire.

 

So you're TECHNICALLY right.  

 

But it don't matter a damn.  

 

Well the guy said "He's not under contract with anybody"...that's not true lol. I mean, we could trade him, I guess, if we wanted to. I'm not saying anyone would trade for Fitz, because nobody in their right mind would.

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

Well the guy said "He's not under contract with anybody"...that's not true lol. I mean, we could trade him, I guess, if we wanted to. I'm not saying anyone would trade for Fitz, because nobody in their right mind would.

Who would trade for a player who’s contract is going to expire before the next season?

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Who would trade for a player who’s contract is going to expire before the next season?

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair, I did say "nobody in their right mind" lol 😂

[ColonialWBSkinsFan]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Who SHOULD they have brought in? I'll hang up and wait for your answer.  

They SHOULD have traded up to get Mac or Fields.  
 

If, as you say, they only got Fitz as a “one-year stopgap” (though that has not ever been said officially by Rivera or anyone else), then failing to draft a QB last year is an even worse decision in retrospect.  Because even if Fitz had played all year, they’d still be at ground zero absolutely no closer to solving the QB problem.
 

 

[MrJL]

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Well the guy said "He's not under contract with anybody"...that's not true lol. I mean, we could trade him, I guess, if we wanted to. I'm not saying anyone would trade for Fitz, because nobody in their right mind would.

 

no we can't.  Trade deadline has passed.  The moment it opens again is the moment his contract expires

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, ColonialWBSkinsFan said:

They SHOULD have traded up to get Mac or Fields.  
 

If, as you say, they only got Fitz as a “one-year stopgap” (though that has not ever been said officially by Rivera or anyone else), then failing to draft a QB last year is an even worse decision in retrospect.  Because even if Fitz had played all year, they’d still be at ground zero absolutely no closer to solving the QB problem.
 

 

Well, they only signed him to a 1 year deal so I’m not sure what more proof you want.

 

And they would have had to go to 8 or 9 to get Fields, which was too expensive.  And they didn’t love Jones. They might be wrong on that, we’ll see.

 

However, you’re missing the point.  You said it was a bad decision to sign him.  They were never in a position to draft Fields or Jones.  

 

Who would you have had them sign in FA? They couldn’t go into the draft without at least a backup plan in case they couldn’t pull off a trade.  We’ve all seen TH can’t be an NFL QB.   They knew that before we did. 
 

So, who should they have signed who was available?

[NoCalMike]

At least with Fitz, it isn't going to have the same long term ramifications all the other signings/trades of over the hill vets did. 

[ColonialWBSkinsFan]

10 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Well, they only signed him to a 1 year deal so I’m not sure what more proof you want.

 

And they would have had to go to 8 or 9 to get Fields, which was too expensive.  And they didn’t love Jones. They might be wrong on that, we’ll see.

 

However, you’re missing the point.  You said it was a bad decision to sign him.  They were never in a position to draft Fields or Jones.  

 

Who would you have had them sign in FA? They couldn’t go into the draft without at least a backup plan in case they couldn’t pull off a trade.  We’ve all seen TH can’t be an NFL QB.   They knew that before we did. 
 

So, who should they have signed who was available?

 

I wouldn't have signed ANYONE.  They should have drafted a QB (whoever they liked or could have gone up to get) and started the clock on grooming him to be the man.  Admitting that they were going to pretty much suck (which they did ANYWAY)!   They have essentially wasted a full season and are not any closer (in fact, probably further away) from addressing the single most important problem facing the franchise.  Honest question:  Do you really believe this team would have been any better than 7-10 with a full year of Fitzpatrick?  I don't.

 

So, again, to answer your question, I wouldn't have signed any aging vet.   I would have taken my lumps and been on Year 2 of my franchise QB search.  Instead they badly reached in the draft for a MLB who can't freakin' play MLB.  Is that what you'd have done?

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, ColonialWBSkinsFan said:

 

I wouldn't have signed ANYONE.  They should have drafted a QB (whoever they liked or could have gone up to get) and started the clock on grooming him to be the man.  Admitting that they were going to pretty much suck (which they did ANYWAY)!   They have essentially wasted a full season and are not any closer (in fact, probably further away) from addressing the single most important problem facing the franchise.  Honest question:  Do you really believe this team would have been any better than 7-10 with a full year of Fitzpatrick?  I don't.

 

So, again, to answer your question, I wouldn't have signed any aging vet.   I would have taken my lumps and been on Year 2 of my franchise QB search.  Instead they badly reached in the draft for a MLB who can't freakin' play MLB.  Is that what you'd have done?

So you go into the draft, with pick #19, absolutely knowing you have to trade up?  That, my friend, is a REALLY bad strategy.  Because then you are forced to panic and pay whatever the asking price is for a completely unknown quantity, regardless of the draft grade you have on a guy.  You put yourself into a low-leverage position.  

 

Also, Galdi did this analysis a while ago: Rarely, if ever, have trade-ups for QBs worked out.  Go back to 2012:

 

2012: 2nd overall - Griffin - Redskins traded up, giving up 2 1sts and a second.  BUST

2016: 1st overall - Goff - Rams traded 2 firsts, 2 thirds, and a bunch of other stuff to move up. BUST

2016: 2nd overall - Wentz - Eagles traded 2 firsts, a couple thirds and a second.  Wentz is going to be on his 3rd team in 6 years after Indy gets rid of him.

2017: 2nd overall - Mitch - Chicago moved up one spot to grab Mitch (really for no reason, and gave up 2 3rds and a 4th to do it.  The cost wasn't THAT much for 1 spot, but it didn't work out. 

2017: 10th overall - Mahomes - Now, this one DID work out.  KC gave up a 2017 3rd and a 2018 1st to move up from 27 to 10.  

2018: 3rd overall - Darnold - to move up from 6 to 3, the Jets gave up 2 2018 2nds and a 2019 2nd. And Darnold is a BUST.

2018: 7th overall - Josh Allen - This one also worked out.  Buffalo moved up from 12 to 7 to select Allen.  The cost was 2 2018 second rounders.  

2018: 10th overall - Rosen - The Cards moved up from 15 to 10 to select Rosen, and gave up a 3rd and 5th. (This was cheap. But still a bust.)

** The Ravens also traded up (slightly) to the 32nd pick in the 1st round to draft Lamar.  I'm not really including it, it clearly worked, but since it is the last pick in the first round, it was the Raven's second 1st round selection, and they moved up a few spots from the second round.  

** The only notable trade in the 2020 draft was the Packers for Love at 26.  And that trade is conveluded, and he hasn't played, so make of it what you will.  

2021: Lance - SF moved from 12 to 3.  They gave up a 2021 3rd, a 2022 and 2023 1st to do it. 

2021: Fields - Chicago moved up from 20 to 11 with the NYG, and it cost them a 2021 5th, and a 2022 1st and 4th.  

 

Let's say 2021 is just too early to tell.  So there were 8 trade ups of note.  6 are definite busts.  2 worked out really well.  Those are bad odds to bank on without having a contingency plan.  

 

** NOTE: There is no way the Giants were going to trade with Washington to get to 11 for a franchise QB.  Phily was at 10, also not going to trade with Washington for a franchise QB.   They would have had to go up to at worst 9, which is 10 spots, to get there.  Ron has commented they inquired about getting up to 8 or 9, but the price was more than they were willing to pay, probably for Fields. There is a limit to what you want to give up to get a particular player.  Would it have cost as much as SF paid to move up to get Lance?  Probably not.  But they gave up 3 really valuable picks to do it.  It would have been closer to that compensation than it would have been to the Bears moving up to get Fields.  Because you're knocking either Carolina or or Denver down to the back half of the first round.   Now, if you've got a "Mahomes" grade on fields, then you do it.  If you don't, you don't.

 

And regardless, signing a vet to start the beginning of the season until the QB is ready is just good business.

 

Personally, I didn't like Fields all that much.  Maybe Jones, but we'll see.  I think Jones succeeded because he was in the absolute best position a rookie QB can be in.  I don't know if he would have had anywhere near that success here.  I would not have given up multiple firsts and day 2 picks to move up to get either Fields or Jones.  That was my opinion last year, it remains my opinion this year, and so far, it seems like I'm more right than wrong.  

[MrJL]

13 hours ago, ColonialWBSkinsFan said:

 

I wouldn't have signed ANYONE.  They should have drafted a QB (whoever they liked or could have gone up to get) and started the clock on grooming him to be the man.  Admitting that they were going to pretty much suck (which they did ANYWAY)!   They have essentially wasted a full season and are not any closer (in fact, probably further away) from addressing the single most important problem facing the franchise.  Honest question:  Do you really believe this team would have been any better than 7-10 with a full year of Fitzpatrick?  I don't.

 

 

 

And if there was no one they both liked or could have gone up to get?  And they had to have someone cause Heinike might have been a one game wonder.

Edited January 19, 2022 by MrJL

[Warhead36]

From what I heard it was Lance that our people really liked, not Fields.