Fitzmagic Thread

[mooby]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

12 Big Time Throws = Tight window where only the WR can catch it

14 Turnover worthy throws = Throwing into tight coverage where a defender can make a play on it.

It's going to be a roller coaster lol

Fitzpatrick is a student of the Brett Favruh school of quarterbacking, he's high risk and high reward. You either get 4 td's or 4 int's.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by mooby

Fitzpatrick is a student of the Brett Favruh school of quarterbacking, he's high risk and high reward. You either get 4 td's or 4 int's.

Yep, he's had some amazing plays over the last few years. At the very least he'll bring excitement

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by mooby

Fitzpatrick is a student of the Brett Favruh school of quarterbacking, he's high risk and high reward. You either get 4 td's or 4 int's.

Favre won one SB on stacked teams. He lost countless playoff games with horrible picks. The problem is Fitz isn't as talented as Favre.

[Scalper]

C- grade signing. He is a 38 year old QB with a career losing record and a very low career QB rating. I understand the logic, better than trading draft picks or signing a similar above average but not great QB to a long term deal, and conventional but incorrect thinking is you need a dependable guy to bridge until you find a long-term answer. So we now have two stopgaps on roster, Fitz and Allen, who are NOT long term answers. If we draft a QB and cut Allen, this move looks a lot better, but we should be looking for long-term solutions. If we go into season with Heinecke, Fitz, and Allen at QB that is atrocious as only one QB is potential long term answer. What keeps this grade from being a D or F is that there are very limited options in free agency. Fitz is not leading us to a SB, we should be looking for QBs with potential to be long-term franchise SB winners. The proper move is to draft 1 QB and go with Heinecke, Allen, rookie, or ideally 2 rookies and Heinecke, and use $10M to resign Allen and others long term. Is our goal to win the participation trophy of an early playoff exit, or find a franchise QB that can win the big one? This is the problem with coach as GM, short term thinking. This is NOT the move Smith would have made if still GM. He would have drafted QBs.

So we have now spent $28M on Scherff and Fitz, while Allen isn't extended. F-ing brilliant. A competent FO would have locked up Allen first.

The single most important thing a GM or FO can do is get QB right. Our FO has not as of yet. We also read that Fitz is now the de facto starter. Sure there will be competition, but we need to be favoring younger players who could be long-term answer. I would much rather go 7-9 with Heinecke and know he isn't the answer, or go 7-9 with Heinecke and know he is the answer, than waste a year with a 38 year old QB who has never won a SB and is never going to win one for us. What may happen is that we start Fitz and never get a good enough look at Heinecke to see if he is the future, meaning next year we're right back in the exact same spot. This is a case study in why you don't give coach GM powers. All we are doing is sacrificing long-term for the short. It would actually be smarter to start Heinecke all year and if he isn't the answer you draft top 5 and get a franchise QB.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by Scalper

C- grade signing. He is a 38 year old QB with a career losing record and a very low career QB rating. I understand the logic, better than trading draft picks or signing a similar above average but not great QB to a long term deal, and conventional but incorrect thinking is you need a dependable guy to bridge until you find a long-term answer. So we now have two stopgaps on roster, Fitz and Allen, who are NOT long term answers. If we draft a QB and cut Allen, this move looks a lot better, but we should be looking for long-term solutions. If we go into season with Heinecke, Fitz, and Allen at QB that is atrocious as only one QB is potential long term answer. What keeps this grade from being a D or F is that there are very limited options in free agency. Fitz is not leading us to a SB, we should be looking for QBs with potential to be long-term franchise SB winners. The proper move is to draft 1 QB and go with Heinecke, Allen, rookie, or ideally 2 rookies and Heinecke, and use $10M to resign Allen and others long term. Is our goal to win the participation trophy of an early playoff exit, or find a franchise QB that can win the big one? This is the problem with coach as GM, short term thinking. This is NOT the move Smith would have made if still GM. He would have drafted QBs.

So we have now spent $28M on Scherff and Fitz, while Allen isn't extended. F-ing brilliant. A competent FO would have locked up Allen first.

The single most important thing a GM or FO can do is get QB right. Our FO has not as of yet. We also read that Fitz is now the de facto starter. Sure there will be competition, but we need to be favoring younger players who could be long-term answer. I would much rather go 7-9 with Heinecke and know he isn't the answer, or go 7-9 with Heinecke and know he is the answer, than waste a year with a 38 year old QB who has never won a SB and is never going to win one for us. What may happen is that we start Fitz and never get a good enough look at Heinecke to see if he is the future, meaning next year we're right back in the exact same spot. This is a case study in why you don't give coach GM powers. All we are doing is sacrificing long-term for the short. It would actually be smarter to start Heinecke all year and if he isn't the answer you draft top 5 and get a franchise QB.

There are no QBs available at the moment with the potential to be long-term franchise SB winners. RR and team have the obligation to upgrade the position, and they can only do that with what is available. There is no guarantee they are able to get a QB they like in the draft.

There will be competition at QB, which is a good thing. After said competition, you start the QB that gives you the best chance to win, not the one you want to evaluate for 17 games to see if he can eventually / hopefully take you to the promise land.

The front office has been together for about 1.5 months. How about we give them some time to find a franchise QB.

Allen has another year on his contract, plenty of time to get a deal done yet.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Scalper

C- grade signing. He is a 38 year old QB with a career losing record and a very low career QB rating. I understand the logic, better than trading draft picks or signing a similar above average but not great QB to a long term deal, and conventional but incorrect thinking is you need a dependable guy to bridge until you find a long-term answer. So we now have two stopgaps on roster, Fitz and Allen, who are NOT long term answers. If we draft a QB and cut Allen, this move looks a lot better, but we should be looking for long-term solutions. If we go into season with Heinecke, Fitz, and Allen at QB that is atrocious as only one QB is potential long term answer. What keeps this grade from being a D or F is that there are very limited options in free agency. Fitz is not leading us to a SB, we should be looking for QBs with potential to be long-term franchise SB winners. The proper move is to draft 1 QB and go with Heinecke, Allen, rookie, or ideally 2 rookies and Heinecke, and use $10M to resign Allen and others long term. Is our goal to win the participation trophy of an early playoff exit, or find a franchise QB that can win the big one? This is the problem with coach as GM, short term thinking. This is NOT the move Smith would have made if still GM. He would have drafted QBs.

So we have now spent $28M on Scherff and Fitz, while Allen isn't extended. F-ing brilliant. A competent FO would have locked up Allen first.

The single most important thing a GM or FO can do is get QB right. Our FO has not as of yet. We also read that Fitz is now the de facto starter. Sure there will be competition, but we need to be favoring younger players who could be long-term answer. I would much rather go 7-9 with Heinecke and know he isn't the answer, or go 7-9 with Heinecke and know he is the answer, than waste a year with a 38 year old QB who has never won a SB and is never going to win one for us. What may happen is that we start Fitz and never get a good enough look at Heinecke to see if he is the future, meaning next year we're right back in the exact same spot. This is a case study in why you don't give coach GM powers. All we are doing is sacrificing long-term for the short. It would actually be smarter to start Heinecke all year and if he isn't the answer you draft top 5 and get a franchise QB.

If Heinicke is the guy then he will beat out Fitz. If he can't beat out Fitz then he clearly isn't the guy.

Also we still may be in play for drafting someone. I think this move just adds another durable guy w/ experience who can be a backup or starter. Obviously he isn't the long term solution.

The off season isn't over yet as we will see what happens in the draft.

Really not sure why anyone dislikes this move.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

If Heinicke is the guy then he will beat out Fitz. If he can't beat out Fitz then he clearly isn't the guy.

Also we still may be in play for drafting someone. I think this move just adds another durable guy w/ experience who can be a backup or starter. Obviously he isn't the long term solution.

The off season isn't over yet as we will see what happens in the draft.

Really not sure why anyone dislikes this move.

Concur on competition. Hope so on drafting. It is a decent amount of money that could be spent better elsewhere that does nothing to address the long term need at the position. Did you see the Packers signing stopgaps after Favre retired? No, they drafted until they found their guy. As observed in original post, we should be adding players with long-term potential. When you look at long term potential at the position, we may have the worst QB situation in the NFL. The proper approach would have been to not sign Fitz and draft 1-2 QBs and let them compete.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Scalper

Favre won one SB on stacked teams. He lost countless playoff games with horrible picks. The problem is Fitz isn't as talented as Favre.

There is Brady and then the rest when it comes to playoff wins. Favre is 6th all time with 13 wins. You make it sound like he was a failure in the postseason.
Also my man almost every super bowl winning quarterback ever had a stacked team. Bradshaw, Stauback, Aikman, all three of our super bowl winners, Kurt Warner, Russ, Brady, I mean the list goes on and on. It is pretty rare that a quarterback wins a superbowl without a stacked team. Extremely rare. Eli Manning, Payton Manning, i could just copy and paste the entire list of super bowl winners actually.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Scalper

Favre won one SB on stacked teams. He lost countless playoff games with horrible picks. The problem is Fitz isn't as talented as Favre.

Who is saying he is?

Alls I'm saying is Fitzpatrick is inconsistent, he's gonna have games where he looks really good, and games where he looks really bad. It's been the trend his entire career.