Back To The Future: What If Hackenberg Is Actually Good?

[Big Blocker]

11 hours ago, joewilly12 said:

 

Probably my least favorite Kool and the Gang song.

[Charlie Brown]

3 hours ago, Jetmech said:

 

I agree with the theory but it seemed like he was practically undraftable.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 

 

I agree that many thought Hack undraftable.  

I wanted Hack, drafted, I did, but I am honest enough to say what the heck do I know!  In truth I know virtually nothing when it comes to actually drafting a QB!!

But Mac does, I HOPE!!  And he is all in with Hack and time will tell if he was right or not....

[MDL_JET]

11 hours ago, Charlie Brown said:

I was of the same mindset as well.  

But what I now realize if you are Mac and you think that Hack is a franchise QB then you get him in round two like Mac did.  However if you gamble and Hack is a bum like some theorize out here, Mac is in some trouble no two ways around it.  

You cant be in favor of Hack as I am and then say it doesn't matter that he was a second round pick if he fails.  Guys get fired when they get stuff like this wrong because it can set a franchise back 5 to 7 years.  

I'm just hoping that Mac is right.  

I don't understand how he's in trouble for taking a chance on QB in the 2nd round? Guys get fired for giving up future picks for a 1st rounder and they bust (Goff?) That's setting your team back 5-7 years because you can't recover with next years picks. Not whiffing on a 2nd round pick. Mac didn't give up anything to take him. 

[Charlie Brown]

10 hours ago, Lil Woody said:

I think you're overvaluing the 2nd round pick. Busting on a 1st rounder has been said to set a team back 3-5 years. Don't get me wrong, missing on picks absolutely matter. It can't be a constant or yeah you will set the team back, but any team can survive an occasional bust, even in the 1st round, IF they are drafting well overall.  If you like a QB enough and you don't think he will make it back to you in the next round, you take him.  I'll also give any GM trying to find a QB a lot more leeway on that particular pick than I would if the selection was say a guard. Now if the GM stands pat on that pick and doesn't keep putting other players in the mix to compete for the job, then fine, the anger is warranted, because then you are banking on him.  Sort of like we did with Geno.  We used a 2nd rounder on him and stood pat on the pick while Bridgewater, Carr, Garappolo, McCarron, Savage, Murray and Mettenberger kept passing us by.  (There was some optimism on many of those guys fwiw and I try not to use the benefit of 20/20 hindsight)

To me the bigger question is how well has the team been drafting overall. Are we getting starters in the draft or are we totally sh*tting the bed like Idzik did?  If you are getting starters, taking fliers on QBs is fine, I'd argue that it is a necessary part of drafting well when you don't have a QB and you don't have a high enough pick to land a FQB.  The bigger issue becomes when you burn a high 1st rounder on a franchise QB and then waste 4 years grooming him on the field and come up with nothing to show for it at the end.  Taking a 2nd-4th rd QB to keep filling the prospect pipeline only becomes a problem when you fail consistently over time netting the same effect. If you end up getting a viable starter along the way, all is forgiven. Plus then you have more draft capital. As they say....QB is EVERYTHING. Keep trying till you get it right.  Then keep trying some more.

See what you are saying in general makes sense however in the instant case Mac was all in Hack.  

Mack went big going after Hack when many teams allegedly had Hack having an undraftable NFL QB grade.  His moves forestalled him making other moves (such as bundling picks) or drafting another QB last year or this.  Now if Hack is a bust, he has to draft a new QB , groom that new guy which may take 3 to 4 years if he is any good hence my 5 to 7 year statement, which includes the time spent on Hack.

Of course the rest of what you wrote makes perfect sense, one player or round doesn't make you a great or terrible judge of prospective NFL talent.  However IMO in today's NFL you are not going to go far unless you have a tier one NFL QB, and no amount of successful picks of SS or CBs is or can make up for that fact. 

[Charlie Brown]

9 minutes ago, MDL_JET said:

I don't understand how he's in trouble for taking a chance on QB in the 2nd round? Guys get fired for giving up future picks for a 1st rounder and they bust (Goff?) That's setting your team back 5-7 years because you can't recover with next years picks. Not whiffing on a 2nd round pick. Mac didn't give up anything to take him. 

Lost opportunity cost is a problem.  

Going after the wrong prospect means that you didn't pursue the right one, or package things to do a move, or take care of draft picks or bundle those picks differently.

I will say it again I was very high on Hack, said it before the draft and was HAPPY that the Jets drafted him.  

However wrong moves have consequences, even if I was one of the pomp pomp waivers for the deal.

I just hope that Mac is right......

[56mehl56]

10 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

so how do you square that one good year means more than two bad years? 

I don't.

I don't want to revisit the entire history of what happened at PSU both on and off the field(sanctions/players leaving). Needless to say there's nothing from those years that will give a true indicator of how Hack will and can develop as a pro. Will he ever become a franchise QB or even a serviceable one at that - who knows. All I know is pointing at his turmoil filled college career and one under worked redshirt season with Jets is pure folly and is an easy out for negaJet fans to say I told you so.

[56mehl56]

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

Decades of NFL history.

That doesn't make it false , that makes it a guess based on statistics.

 

[#27TheDominator]

6 minutes ago, 56mehl56 said:

That doesn't make it false , that makes it a guess based on statistics.

 

Likelihood is a "guess based on statistics."  We can state with a great degree of certainty that it is more likely that he busts.  

[dbatesman]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

Likelihood is a "guess based on statistics."  We can state with a great degree of certainty that it is more likely that he busts.  

When you think about it, none of us can do or say or know anything, really

[ZachEY]

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Likelihood is a "guess based on statistics."  We can state with a great degree of certainty that it is more likely that he busts.  

Well, when you really think about it, there are two options, 1) Hackenberg is good, and 2) Hackenberg is not good.

Hence, 50/50

[dbatesman]

7 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Well, when you really think about it

HEY

[faba]

The only hope we can be better than expected is for this to happen- maybe our 50 year of misfortune can change but do not bet on it

[56mehl56]

41 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Likelihood is a "guess based on statistics."  We can state with a great degree of certainty that it is more likely that he busts.  

You can say that about most Qb's still doesn't make that "absolutely" right.

[Copernicus]

On 5/16/2017 at 11:52 PM, Charlie Brown said:

If Hack is really good. many out here will have to find a new hobby out here to do other than complaining...

I wanted hack drafted so I am in the clear minority at here... 

Totally agreed. I am right with ya!

[Charlie Brown]

14 hours ago, thadude said:

What if I win a million bucks?

Then you and I are partners!!!  

[RoadFan]

OP is asking the wrong question. The better question is "What exactly is Hackenberg good at?"

Accuracy? No.

Decision-making? No.

Mechanics? No.

Footwork? No.

One could certainly make a case for durability.  But other than that....what else?

[jeremy2020]

3 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

I don't.

I don't want to revisit the entire history of what happened at PSU both on and off the field(sanctions/players leaving). Needless to say there's nothing from those years that will give a true indicator of how Hack will and can develop as a pro. Will he ever become a franchise QB or even a serviceable one at that - who knows. All I know is pointing at his turmoil filled college career and one under worked redshirt season with Jets is pure folly and is an easy out for negaJet fans to say I told you so.

So instead you like to base your belief, going against all of the odds, statistics, facts, history, etc, to stick to a "Well, anything is possible" miracle possibility.  It's also possible the rest of the NFL players from all teams except the Jets die paving their way to a championship, but given the odds, history, facts, and statistics, I'm not going to bet on it.

[bitonti]

3 hours ago, gEYno said:

Well, when you really think about it, there are two options, 1) Hackenberg is good, and 2) Hackenberg is not good.

Hence, 50/50

 

"I bought a lottery ticket, i'm either going to win the lottery or I'm not. So that makes 50/50."  

[56mehl56]

17 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

So instead you like to base your belief, going against all of the odds, statistics, facts, history, etc, to stick to a "Well, anything is possible" miracle possibility.  It's also possible the rest of the NFL players from all teams except the Jets die paving their way to a championship, but given the odds, history, facts, and statistics, I'm not going to bet on it.

So based on all your stats, odds, facts , history it will be a miracle if Hack makes it as a quality QB.  That's a rather bold statement to make based on someone who has yet to get quality reps for an NFL team. Sure, its more likely he'll fail than he won't - there's only 32 starting NFL QB's in the world and even some of those would be labeled failures by most here. But to say it will be a miracle if he pans out just screams of Jet negiatisim regardless of the odds.

[ZachEY]

7 hours ago, bitonti said:

"I bought a lottery ticket, i'm either going to win the lottery or I'm not. So that makes 50/50."  

Exactly.  You either have the correct numbers, or you don't.

[ZachEY]

6 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

So based on all your stats, odds, facts , history it will be a miracle if Hack makes it as a quality QB.  That's a rather bold statement to make based on someone who has yet to get quality reps for an NFL team. Sure, its more likely he'll fail than he won't - there's only 32 starting NFL QB's in the world and even some of those would be labeled failures by most here. But to say it will be a miracle if he pans out just screams of Jet negiatisim regardless of the odds.

The dude sucked in college and has done nothing to give anyone a reason to think anything changed. If typical "Jet negativism" is just stating a fact, then I suppose it is. Question, did you think Taj Boyd was 50/50 to be a franchise QB?

[56mehl56]

1 hour ago, gEYno said:

The dude sucked in college and has done nothing to give anyone a reason to think anything changed. If typical "Jet negativism" is just stating a fact, then I suppose it is. Question, did you think Taj Boyd was 50/50 to be a franchise QB?

Taj Boyd wasn't a top rated QB out of HS . Taj Boyd doesn't have the measurables that Hack has . Jet fans like you would have given up on Joe Montana, on Troy Aikman on Eli Manning because OMG they didn't light it up immediately when entering the NFL. Most here are so sure Hack is a bust they won't even look past the fact that he hasn't been given a chance yet. I'm not saying Hack will develop , I'm just saying its ludicrous to be so sure he will bust without given an adequate opportunity. But OMG some disgruntled Jet employee or writer said Hack couldn't hit the ocean - so that's what we should all believe. 

[ZachEY]

9 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

Taj Boyd wasn't a top rated QB out of HS . Taj Boyd doesn't have the measurables that Hack has . Jet fans like you would have given up on Joe Montana, on Troy Aikman on Eli Manning because OMG they didn't light it up immediately when entering the NFL. Most here are so sure Hack is a bust they won't even look past the fact that he hasn't been given a chance yet. I'm not saying Hack will develop , I'm just saying its ludicrous to be so sure he will bust without given an adequate opportunity. But OMG some disgruntled Jet employee or writer said Hack couldn't hit the ocean - so that's what we should all believe. 

Boyd was a 4 star recruit and the 4th ranked QB (rivals.com), so either you don't consider #4 to be "top rated" or you just made that up.  Hackenberg does have better measurables, but Boyd has a far superior college career.  Boyd won an ACC Championship, named ACC player of the year, AFCA 1st team all-american, bowl game MVP, and beat OSU in the Orange Bowl, and holds multiple school and conference records.  Hackenberg was named Big 10 Freshman of the Year, and literally got worse and did nothing since then.

The argument you make about pro-QBs who didn't develop quickly was not something mentioned by "Jets fans like me."  In fact, it's a straw-man argument you've created to defend the hapless argument you're pushing.  First and foremost, Joe Montana was a good QB in college.  Troy Aikman was a good QB in college.  Eli Manning was a good QB in college.  Christian Hackenberg was a bad QB in college.  Also, it's great that you can name 3 QBs who started slowly and went on to be super-stars.  How many can you name that started slowly and finished slowly?  Probably more, I'd imagine.

The second flaw in this logic is that no one is saying that the reason Hackenberg is likely to fail is solely predicated on that quote, or the fact that he didn't play last year.  Rather, 'Jets fans like me' aren't willing to hit the reset button back to 2012 (maybe 2013 if you think his Freshman year was truly good, and not the product of Allen Robinson) in our assessment of a player simply because the Jets drafted him.  The irony is that 'Jets fans like me' would have the same opinion of Hackenberg if he were a Dolphin, Bill, or a Patriot as we do of him as a Jet.  "Jets fans like you" would fall in line with "Jets fans like me" if he were a Dolphin, Bill, or Patriot, laughing at the novella of excuses that need to be made and accepted to suggest that Hackenberg might actually be good.

[jeremy2020]

3 hours ago, gEYno said:

Boyd was a 4 star recruit and the 4th ranked QB (rivals.com), so either you don't consider #4 to be "top rated" or you just made that up.  Hackenberg does have better measurables, but Boyd has a far superior college career.  Boyd won an ACC Championship, named ACC player of the year, AFCA 1st team all-american, bowl game MVP, and beat OSU in the Orange Bowl, and holds multiple school and conference records.  Hackenberg was named Big 10 Freshman of the Year, and literally got worse and did nothing since then.

Remember, these facts don't apply. He was drafted by an NFL team so there's a chance! Believing in the overwhelming likelihood that a guy who couldn't perform at a lower level will continue to perform lowly is crazy talk. 

I also was a fan of "he hasn't had quality reps" which is a really special way of thinking. He's not good enough to get reps and is kept from playing because his coaches don't believe he could handle it is obviously why we can't say that he will be bad!

Every guy who was drafted and never played a snap in the NFL could be a superstar! We just don't know!

[#27TheDominator]

One of Hack's big positives was that O'Brien ran a pro offense at Penn State.  Hack wouldn't need to learn to take a  snap and follow progressions like all these other guys. Can somebody please explain to me why that means he needs a red-shirt year more than a guy like Petty? 

[BCJet]

12 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

One of Hack's big positives was that O'Brien ran a pro offense at Penn State.  Hack wouldn't need to learn to take a  snap and follow progressions like all these other guys. Can somebody please explain to me why that means he needs a red-shirt year more than a guy like Petty? 

He needed the redshirt year to un-shell shock himself from insane amount of sacks/pressure he was subjected to the past 2 seasons at Penn State.  He also needed to re-learn his mechanics as Franklin changed his drops, footwork etc all after his freshman year. Lastly, he needed to come into 2017 without having his confidence destroyed as a rookie.

Maybe he gets his confidence destroyed in his second season and maybe his mechanics never get fixed.  But Mac's plan was to ensure he didnt turn into David Carr 2.0 and wanted Hack to have enough time to break the bad habit he developed of dropping his eyes to look at the rush rather then keep them down the field.  Him not playing in 2016 had little to do with the other guys outplaying him - it was strictly to get him as fresh of a slate as possible for his future development

[56mehl56]

4 hours ago, gEYno said:

Boyd was a 4 star recruit and the 4th ranked QB (rivals.com), so either you don't consider #4 to be "top rated" or you just made that up.  Hackenberg does have better measurables, but Boyd has a far superior college career.  Boyd won an ACC Championship, named ACC player of the year, AFCA 1st team all-american, bowl game MVP, and beat OSU in the Orange Bowl, and holds multiple school and conference records.  Hackenberg was named Big 10 Freshman of the Year, and literally got worse and did nothing since then.

The argument you make about pro-QBs who didn't develop quickly was not something mentioned by "Jets fans like me."  In fact, it's a straw-man argument you've created to defend the hapless argument you're pushing.  First and foremost, Joe Montana was a good QB in college.  Troy Aikman was a good QB in college.  Eli Manning was a good QB in college.  Christian Hackenberg was a bad QB in college.  Also, it's great that you can name 3 QBs who started slowly and went on to be super-stars.  How many can you name that started slowly and finished slowly?  Probably more, I'd imagine.

The second flaw in this logic is that no one is saying that the reason Hackenberg is likely to fail is solely predicated on that quote, or the fact that he didn't play last year.  Rather, 'Jets fans like me' aren't willing to hit the reset button back to 2012 (maybe 2013 if you think his Freshman year was truly good, and not the product of Allen Robinson) in our assessment of a player simply because the Jets drafted him.  The irony is that 'Jets fans like me' would have the same opinion of Hackenberg if he were a Dolphin, Bill, or a Patriot as we do of him as a Jet.  "Jets fans like you" would fall in line with "Jets fans like me" if he were a Dolphin, Bill, or Patriot, laughing at the novella of excuses that need to be made and accepted to suggest that Hackenberg might actually be good.

Seriously, were you living under a rock during those years. Do you remember the mass exodus of players and a HC after Hack's Freshman year due to the Sandusky situation.

Bottom line I don't care if a QB was good or bad in college as long as he has the potential to grow into a good pro QB. There are so many factors , like team makeup , coaching , systems that its virtually a crap shoot in projecting whether a QB will succeed based on his college career. For every anomaly like a Luck or PManning  there are literally hundreds of Qb's with stellar college careers that never even sniff the pros.  My point about QB's starting  slowly really pertains to the QB getting a chance in a setting that is ripe for success. Most highly ranked QB's are drafted onto bad teams or into situations where they're not ready yet.  Its feasible that Hack may fit that category. He has the physical tools, the mentality and the smarts to play the position , the big question is can he develop in the 2017 version of the Jets.

Sure its easy to downplay players on other teams, we don't follow them like we do the Jets. If Hack was on the Dolphins I wouldn't care it he wasn't given a shot to prove himself and quite frankly I wouldn't know if he did or didn't  as I don't follow Dolphins TC's OTA's, practices  etc  like I would with the Jets.

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, 56mehl56 said:

Seriously, were you living under a rock during those years. Do you remember the mass exodus of players and a HC after Hack's Freshman year due to the Sandusky situation.

Bottom line I don't care if a QB was good or bad in college as long as he has the potential to grow into a good pro QB. There are so many factors , like team makeup , coaching , systems that its virtually a crap shoot in projecting whether a QB will succeed based on his college career. For every anomaly like a Luck or PManning  there are literally hundreds of Qb's with stellar college careers that never even sniff the pros.  My point about QB's starting  slowly really pertains to the QB getting a chance in a setting that is ripe for success. Most highly ranked QB's are drafted onto bad teams or into situations where they're not ready yet.  Its feasible that Hack may fit that category. He has the physical tools, the mentality and the smarts to play the position , the big question is can he develop in the 2017 version of the Jets.

Sure its easy to downplay players on other teams, we don't follow them like we do the Jets. If Hack was on the Dolphins I wouldn't care it he wasn't given a shot to prove himself and quite frankly I wouldn't know if he did or didn't  as I don't follow Dolphins TC's OTA's, practices  etc  like I would with the Jets.

Well, I suppose the bolded says it all.

But, just to kind of sum up, we agree, there are literally hundreds of good college QBs who don't succeed in the pros.  The question is how many awful college QBs succeed in the pros?  Where is that historical precedent?

In all likelihood, you're looking at another Stephen Hill, a guy who based on his measurables, should be a good football player.  Yet, he underperformed in college and could never get it together in the pros.  Stephen Hill's poor hands is Hackenberg's inaccuracy.  

[56mehl56]

13 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Well, I suppose the bolded says it all.

But, just to kind of sum up, we agree, there are literally hundreds of good college QBs who don't succeed in the pros.  The question is how many awful college QBs succeed in the pros?  Where is that historical precedent?

In all likelihood, you're looking at another Stephen Hill, a guy who based on his measurables, should be a good football player.  Yet, he underperformed in college and could never get it together in the pros.  Stephen Hill's poor hands is Hackenberg's inaccuracy.  

Wow interpolation at its finest. The Jets drafted an under performing college wr once who failed so the under performing QB they drafted will also fail.

[ZachEY]

14 minutes ago, 56mehl56 said:

Wow interpolation at its finest. The Jets drafted an under performing college wr once who failed so the under performing QB they drafted will also fail.

Well, yes, most bad college players continue to be bad.  Stephen Hill is just a recent, palpable, example of the point... Even more so when you consider that both of these players have a significant limitation in their game that history doesn't have great precedent of working itself out in the pros.

I'm eagerly awaiting your list of poor college QBs who went on to be good though... Eagerly.

[56mehl56]

4 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Well, yes, most bad college players continue to be bad.  Stephen Hill is just a recent, palpable, example of the point... Even more so when you consider that both of these players have a significant limitation in their game that history doesn't have great precedent of working itself out in the pros.

I'm eagerly awaiting your list of poor college QBs who went on to be good though... Eagerly.

Tom Brady, Warren Moon, Roger Staubach, Joe Flacco, Kurt Warner, Tony Romo . Is that list ok for you .

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, 56mehl56 said:

Tom Brady, Warren Moon, Roger Staubach, Joe Flacco, Kurt Warner, Tony Romo . Is that list ok for you .

It's inaccurate, for sure

[sciond]

bottom line we have 16 games to figure it out

[RJIII]

What if grandma had balls?


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[56mehl56]

1 hour ago, RJIII said:

What if grandma had balls?


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Wait - is that a Mahomes joke or something