T0mShane

Members
  • Content count

    35,937
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

84,310 Very Popular

1 Follower

About T0mShane

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  1. I probably wouldn't start Hack until he personally approves of the coach, system, offensive line, and weapons he deems worthy to go to war with. Until then, it's just not fair to judge him.
  2. Oh. OH. We'll see about that.
  3. I mean, what are the chances of that happening? Hahahahahahahsshaahshhahahahshshahaahahahahahahahahahahshshsaa
  4. Hackenberg ruined the draft, IMO. Drafting Darron Lee and Jenkins is fine because it seemed last year that the defense on most plays was stout, but the LBs were way too slow to finish the plays, particularly against the Bills. That should no longer be an issue. The corner in the fourth is predictable because it's clear that Bowles has no use for McDougle or Milliner. Bowles was a scrappy overachiever DB and wants all of his players to be scrappy overachievers, similar to Mangini. The Hackenberg pick makes or breaks this regime, and I suspect he's someone that Maccagnan has wanted for a long time because helooks the part. The organization had to shoot itsshot this year on the position because they couldn't find themselves in Year Four still poking around for veteran cast-offs, but I didn't think they were going to shoot their shot from half court with their off hand. Still grossed out by it, but I'm sure they'll do what they can to insulate the turd and give him a chance to grow some balls and some mental toughness. Worst case scenario, they'll fire Bowles and bring in Bill O'Brien in two years.
  5. Reality: they pay Fitz 2/$20m after trading Mo to the Eagles. They hide Hackenberg on the bench and pray to sweet Christ that he learns how to play quarterback by osmosis. After going 6-10 in 2016, they draft a corner to replace Revis at pick #8.
  6. "They sat down with them" is the entiretyof your defense of the pick. Congrats. Enjoy the door prizes.
  7. Which is fine, but when you have to wrap a player's performance in layer after layer of excuses, you usually end up finding out that the player in question just sucked.
  8. Again, your position is to ignore every statistic, every available metric, and every predictive analysis because you want to like Hackenberg. You're not making an argument here, you're stomping your feet and making entirely baseless claims about a player who's proven nothing.
  9. We were really desperate a year ago, then Cook's backup came in and beat Ohio State and sorta confirmed much of what was troubling about Cook. if people want to like Hackeberg because he's a Jet, they're going to have to do so in defiance of the statistics and every quantifiable analysis in existence on him. If the Bills picked him in the second, these same people would be laughing their asses off.
  10. You make things up, then close your posts accusing people of being anti-scientific about the things you just made up.