42 replies to this topic

[Alphadawg7]

Ok, so in the David Harris thread it was brought up about how Tannenbaum signed Sanchize to a new contract in 2012 which we can mostly agree was terrible.  Most of us also agree the Fitzpick contract is also terrible...both were a bit of head scratching moves when they happened.  So what GM made a worse move?

A few general points about them:

Fitzpick - got his a little over a quarter into the season when the Bills started with a solid record.  Fitz's play was up and down during the start of the season, however the stat sheet looked solid on him still up to that point.  Most were not that impressed with his overall play and felt his inconsistency was the main reason it was too early to commit the large contract.  He had never had a winning season, never led a team to the playoffs, had been woefully inaccurate the majority of his career, and tend to turn the ball over.  The positives is that I believe the Bills were like 5-2 at the time and he was playing better (although IMO not that much better) than his previous season.  

Sanchize - Got his before the start of last season.  His numbers looked ok, but he turned the ball over a lot, often struggled with consistency, and was known to make a lot of bad decisions.  It was also high debateable if he was even improving much and some felt like he had plateaued, which at his level was not a good thing.  The good was that he did help lead the Jets to two AFC championship games and played better in the playoffs those years than he did in the regular season.  However, if he was a couple years removed from that and hadn't been able to do much more since then.  

So who made the worse deal...Nix or Tannenbaum?  Both contracts were a mistake looking back at it, both contracts are currently negatively affecting the respective teams (although the Jets are in a way way worse situation and the Bills are not too bad off cap wise).  

Remember, this isnt about who is the better QB...

Interesting tid bit...these two are ranked one and two for most INT's over the last 2 years in the NFL.

Edited by Alphadawg7, 13 February 2013 - 11:00 PM.

[Dibs]

(I'll cut & paste my response from the other thread....)

That's a very good question.

On the surface both deals seem relatively equal in stupidity.
Fitz was overpaid based upon a streaky run of good performances......having all cautious logic thrown to the wind.
Sanchez was overpaid to a higher level based upon team achievement, pedigree & "potential"......having all cautious logic thrown to the wind.

I would however say the worst one was Sachez.....as his deal seemed to totally ignore the salary cap hell that the team was heading into.

Edited by Dibs, 13 February 2013 - 10:52 PM.

[Alphadawg7]

Dibs, on 13 February 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

(I'll cut & paste my response from the other thread....)

That's a very good question.

On the surface both deals seem relatively equal in stupidity.
Fitz was overpaid based upon a streaky run of good performances......having all cautious logic thrown to the wind.
Sanchez was overpaid to a higher level based upon team achievement, pedigree & "potential"......having all cautious logic thrown to the wind.

I would however say the worst one was Sachez.....as his deal seemed to totally ignore the salary cap hell that the team was heading into.

I will basically do the same with my reply to your post when I originally asked this question in the other thread.

I voted for Fitz in it mainly because Fitz had never accomplished anything and if you had watched the games, his play still mirrored the inconsistent nature of his game and it was the insane amount of turnovers our D was creating that even made that 5-2 record possible.  It was just too early for a career journeyman QB to be given that money where at least Sanchize had led the team twice to the AFC Championship game, and played solid in those playoffs, so that would at least create more hope.

But I do agree with your point about the move given their salary cap situation, so with that point thrown in I think it does sway it to Sanchize.  Nice point

[skibum]

The Sanchez contract was worse by a mile. Fitz is no Joe Montana, but he's a much better QB, leader, and human being than Sanchez - before and after their respective signings.

[NoSaint]

Alphadawg7, on 13 February 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

I will basically do the same with my reply to your post when I originally asked this question in the other thread.

I voted for Fitz in it mainly because Fitz had never accomplished anything and if you had watched the games, his play still mirrored the inconsistent nature of his game and it was the insane amount of turnovers our D was creating that even made that 5-2 record possible.  It was just too early for a career journeyman QB to be given that money where at least Sanchize had led the team twice to the AFC Championship game, and played solid in those playoffs, so that would at least create more hope.

But I do agree with your point about the move given their salary cap situation, so with that point thrown in I think it does sway it to Sanchize.  Nice point

Sanchez is worse. It was based on hurt feelings, not play on the field, pays more, and is harder to get out of. They gave him the 7th richest contract in the nfl hours after failing to sign a replacement.

Fitz was signed to bad starter money and is easier to jettison.

I'd also argue that I'd take fitz over Sanchez (though not a ringing endorsement there) as he's if nothing else a good transition to a young qb role player

[Joe_the_6_pack]

Fitz, because its ours

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Alphadawg7, on 13 February 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

Ok, so in the David Harris thread it was brought up about how Tannenbaum signed Sanchize to a new contract in 2012 which we can mostly agree was terrible.  Most of us also agree the Fitzpick contract is also terrible...both were a bit of head scratching moves when they happened.  So what GM made a worse move?

A few general points about them:

Fitzpick - got his a little over a quarter into the season when the Bills started with a solid record.  Fitz's play was up and down during the start of the season, however the stat sheet looked solid on him still up to that point.  Most were not that impressed with his overall play and felt his inconsistency was the main reason it was too early to commit the large contract.  He had never had a winning season, never led a team to the playoffs, had been woefully inaccurate the majority of his career, and tend to turn the ball over.  The positives is that I believe the Bills were like 5-2 at the time and he was playing better (although IMO not that much better) than his previous season.  

Sanchize - Got his before the start of last season.  His numbers looked ok, but he turned the ball over a lot, often struggled with consistency, and was known to make a lot of bad decisions.  It was also high debateable if he was even improving much and some felt like he had plateaued, which at his level was not a good thing.  The good was that he did help lead the Jets to two AFC championship games and played better in the playoffs those years than he did in the regular season.  However, if he was a couple years removed from that and hadn't been able to do much more since then.  

So who made the worse deal...Nix or Tannenbaum?  Both contracts were a mistake looking back at it, both contracts are currently negatively affecting the respective teams (although the Jets are in a way way worse situation and the Bills are not too bad off cap wise).  

Remember, this isnt about who is the better QB...

Interesting tid bit...these two are ranked one and two for most INT's over the last 2 years in the NFL.

we can cut Fitz without  with out getting killed, so Jets did worse

[benderbender]

skibum, on 13 February 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

The Sanchez contract was worse by a mile. Fitz is no Joe Montana, but he's a much better QB, leader, and human being than Sanchez - before and after their respective signings.

Fitz is a great human being. He finds defenders without a football and he throws it to them. He shares his fumbles. He's a great guy. He loves puppies.

[auburnbillsbacker]

So let's put the contract in perspective.  Heading into the bye 2 years ago the bills looked like a playoff team and Fitzpatrick was playing like Pro Bowler in Chan's offense.  The bills enter the bye week and decide to lock Fitzpatrick up.  The contract would have been modest at best if Fitzpatrick continued to play the way he was playing.  In addition, if he continued to play good ball the bills risked losing him at the end of the season.  He would not have been worth the franchise tag price, so he would have had the opportunity to go wherever he wanted or to whoever offered him the most money.  If you look back at the comments on the site at the time of the signing, most people were in favor of it.  Most people on this board were also mad when the bills passed on Jimmy Clausen.  Fitzpatrick's current contract is acutually kind of fair when you compare it too his production.  Now, would I like to see the bills obtain a better QB?  Yes I would.  I just can deal with all of the revisionist historians on here.  To read the messages on the site you would think that bills fans were Bill Polians.  Everyone knew that Russel Wilson and  Colin Kaepernick were going to be great.  Everyone knew that Fitz would fail.  I'm calling BS on all of this.  Fitzpatrick's contract was worth the risk.  The mistake the bills made was not drafting a QB just in case Fitz came back down to earth.

Edited by auburnbillsbacker, 14 February 2013 - 07:46 AM.

[KD in CT]

Fitz -- by a mile.

The Sanchize contract was directly in response to the Tebow signing -- which was the real foolish move for the Jets -- as a signal that Sanchize was still the guy.   The Jets painted themselves into a corner and that was the price to get out.  But even still, Sanchize has won 4 playoff games as a starter so it was not that unreasonable to expect him to improve in 2012 rather than regress.

Fitz meanwhile got huge money for a six game run against mostly bad teams (and the Pats on Tom Brady's worse day as a pro).   That was the most foolish contract decision since Notre Dame gave Charlie Weis a 10 year extension after his first ten games.

[Triple Threat]

KD in CT, on 14 February 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

Fitz -- by a mile.

The Sanchize contract was directly in response to the Tebow signing -- which was the real foolish move for the Jets -- as a signal that Sanchize was still the guy.   The Jets painted themselves into a corner and that was the price to get out.  But even still, Sanchize has won 4 playoff games as a starter so it was not that unreasonable to expect him to improve in 2012 rather than regress.

Fitz meanwhile got huge money for a six game run against mostly bad teams (and the Pats on Tom Brady's worse day as a pro).   That was the most foolish contract decision since Notre Dame gave Charlie Weis a 10 year extension after his first ten games.

What would you have done differently with Fitz?

[Heitz]

Fitz was playing well and in the final year of his deal.  Sanchez was playing well BUT he still had two years on his deal.

The Bills were scared they would wind up with no QB, the Jets were scared Sanchez was upset over the Manning rumors and the Tebow deal.

Gotta go with Sanchez / Jets...

Edited by Heitz, 14 February 2013 - 09:18 AM.

[VADC Bills]

Triple Threat, on 14 February 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

What would you have done differently with Fitz?

Waited until the end of the season before even starting negotiations.
Fitz has never demonstrated the ability to win enough to come close to making the playoffs.

[Triple Threat]

VADC Bills, on 14 February 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Waited until the end of the season before even starting negotiations.
Fitz has never demonstrated the ability to win enough to come close to making the playoffs.

We wouldn't have gotten him any cheaper and would have taken on a huge risk.  So you would have risked losing him to get him for the same money, doesn't make any sense.

[Ryan L Billz]

skibum, on 13 February 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

The Sanchez contract was worse by a mile. Fitz is no Joe Montana, but he's a much better QB, leader, and human being than Sanchez - before and after their respective signings.

what does he lead? other than losses?    why is he a better human that Sanchez?   because he's married while Sanchito is out doing his Derek Jeter light impression?    both contracts are brutal, if fitz was a leader we would actually beat teams that have .500 records though.

[Fig Newtons]

I look at it like this ... The Jets sucked mostly because Sanchez sucked.   The Bills sucked because their coaching and defense sucked.  The Jets lost games because Sanchez was terrible.  The Bills failed to win a couple games because Fitz wasn't good enough to come from behind.

Either way, neither is worthy of a starting QB gig.  But the Sanchez deal, to me, was worse.

[cnico]

Heitz, on 14 February 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Fitz was playing well and in the final year of his deal.  Sanchez was playing well BUT he still had two years on his deal.

The Bills were scared they would wind up with no QB, the Jets were scared Sanchez was upset over the Manning rumors and the Tebow deal.

Gotta go with Sanchez / Jets...

This is a great point, except that Sanchez wasn't really playing all that well.  Sanchez deal was way worse for this and many of the other reasons already posted.  At least with Fitz’s deal, we have some outs without taking a huge salary cap hit.  With all their other cap issues, the Jests can’t cut Sanchez this year if they wanted to.

Edited by cnico, 14 February 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[NoSaint]

VADC Bills, on 14 February 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Waited until the end of the season before even starting negotiations.
Fitz has never demonstrated the ability to win enough to come close to making the playoffs.

Nor was he paid on that level

[NoSaint]

its been mentioned a few times in here as a a reaction to tebow.... if i remember correct, that isnt true. manning signed with the broncos, within about a day sanchez got his "we are sorry" deal then the following week they dealt for tebow - no?

[Marauder24]

Triple Threat, on 14 February 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

We wouldn't have gotten him any cheaper and would have taken on a huge risk.  So you would have risked losing him to get him for the same money, doesn't make any sense.

And after watching him since that contract was signed (as well as looking at his career "accomplishments"), I would have been ecstatic for him to be someone else's problem.  Maybe then we would have been forced to select a QB in the most QB rich draft in a decade rather than the weakest QB draft in a decade.

Edited by Marauder24, 14 February 2013 - 10:24 AM.