Hackenberg is in the HOUSE!!!

[Jet Fan RI]

12 hours ago, Powpow said:

Do the Aaron Rodgers thing and keep him on the bench until he's absolutely ready - 3-4 years. He's shell shocked and in this offense as it's currently set up, he'll never recover. 

Exactly what has me worried.

[thadude]

13 hours ago, sciond said:

everyone's junk is better than ours. based on opinions

people who love Lynch sound like Glennon fans...

There is  not enough body of work to decide if Lynch or Hack is going to be  a decent QB

Suck for Sam

Lynch is hot garbage I called it before the 2016 draft

 

Glennon is good and will be good for the bears

 

Hack is a friggin clown who won't be in the NFL after next season

[thadude]

12 hours ago, Greensleeves said:

Dak Prescott has the best offensive line in front of him. He was very fortunate to be in a good situation. I think he'll take a big step back this year if anything happens to his line.

Disagree completely I think Prescott will continue to get even better.  Yes he's in a great situation in Dallas but Matt Cassel and Brandon Weeden also had that great OL in front of them and didn't even look average

[BCJet]

12 hours ago, Powpow said:

Do the Aaron Rodgers thing and keep him on the bench until he's absolutely ready - 3-4 years. He's shell shocked and in this offense as it's currently set up, he'll never recover. 

For anyone who is on board with the "Aaron Rogers 3-4 year thing" do you actually know WHY he sat for that long?  It wasnt to develop him, it was because he had a Hall of Famer in front of him, so the Coach/GM didnt ever have to think about taking a QB because they no longer needed one.  Rogers was ready to play at the start of his second season, he simply played behind an NFL legend, so that argument fails to look at the circumstances surrounding each team/QB at the time.

On top of that, these guys that need 2+ years to groom need that time to learn the pro game, after coming from a one-read, spread system where they didnt take snaps, huddle or call plays.  The whole reason we took Hack is because he didnt have that learning curve, he played in a pro offense and can make that mental transition very easily and quickly.  Where he is developmental is in his mechanics and accuracy - and while those 2 things can improve more and more over time, he has also had 2 full offseasons with a QB coach, along with 2 training camps to improve.  If he cant be a competent passer (55-57%) with some chunk plays down the field, then the chances of him "getting it" later on are very slim.  2017 is the time for us to see what we have with him, waiting another year doesnt do anything.

[thadude]

2 minutes ago, BCJet said:

For anyone who is on board with the "Aaron Rogers 3-4 year thing" do you actually know WHY he sat for that long?  It wasnt to develop him, it was because he had a Hall of Famer in front of him, so the Coach/GM didnt ever have to think about taking a QB because they no longer needed one.  Rogers was ready to play at the start of his second season, he simply played behind an NFL legend, so that argument fails to look at the circumstances surrounding each team/QB at the time.

On top of that, these guys that need 2+ years to groom need that time to learn the pro game, after coming from a one-read, spread system where they didnt take snaps, huddle or call plays.  The whole reason we took Hack is because he didnt have that learning curve, he played in a pro offense and can make that mental transition very easily and quickly.  Where he is developmental is in his mechanics and accuracy - and while those 2 things can improve more and more over time, he has also had 2 full offseasons with a QB coach, along with 2 training camps to improve.  If he cant be a competent passer (55-57%) with some chunk plays down the field, then the chances of him "getting it" later on are very slim.  2017 is the time for us to see what we have with him, waiting another year doesnt do anything.

1. Rodgers actually suited up for games as a rookie

 

2. Rodgers actually played in a regular season game as a rookie and played well

 

3. Rodgers had a top 5 all time QB ahead of him.  Hack has scrubs easily beating him out

[BigRy56]

 

Pain = gain. #MondayMotivation

A post shared by New York Jets (@nyjets) on May 8, 2017 at 2:41pm PDT

[Ohio State NY Jets fan]

Off-Season Gold right here  could be a new Raider fan or two in this thread

Da interwebz never forgets - take credit or crow - either way it's entertainment

although there seem to be a few recent edits in this thread, changing a hack quote to another?

 

[ZachEY]

11 hours ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

Off-Season Gold right here  could be a new Raider fan or two in this thread

Da interwebz never forgets - take credit or crow - either way it's entertainment

although there seem to be a few recent edits in this thread, changing a hack quote to another?

 

When people ask you what happened here tell them JN remembers.  Tell them winter came for House Hackenberg.

[jetstream23]

[roscoeword]

On 5/9/2017 at 8:02 PM, thadude said:

Lynch is hot garbage I called it before the 2016 draft

 

Glennon is good and will be good for the bears

 

Hack is a friggin clown who won't be in the NFL after next season

2 out of 3 aint bad. 

[Villain The Foe]

5 hours ago, roscoeword said:

2 out of 3 aint bad. 

Glennon wasnt as bad as typically advertised. They had the worst group of receivers, a suspect Oline and an overall suspect offensive approach. 

 

When they traded up for Trubisky it basically put Glennon in a "win no matter what" situation, and as soon as he began losing they pulled him (as if HE was the root of the problem) then they put in Trubisky, and what did the Bears do? A whole bunch of nothing, because he had the same issues as Glennon...which was the rest of the offense, outside of the rookie RB Tarik Cohen and Jordan Howard

So during this offseason they did exactly what they needed to do, address the actual problem. They bought in Allen Robinson, Taylor Gabriel and Trey Burton, along with drafting two more WR's. 

 

Glennon got alot of crap given his performance, which wasnt great, but he had no help....neither did Trubisky. Glennon should have just signed with the Jets for less money. He's still be a starter instead of finding himself as the #3 guy in Arizona. The Bears really stuck it to him with that move for Trubisky. I bet if he knew that they were going to do that he wouldnt have signed. 

BUT, that's what happens when you're not a top 10 QB. Sometimes it simply takes years to find the right situation, ask Case Keenum. 

 

[sciond]

On 5/8/2017 at 11:23 PM, sciond said:

everyone's junk is better than ours. based on opinions

people who love Lynch sound like Glennon fans...

There is  not enough body of work to decide if Lynch or Hack is going to be  a decent QB

Suck for Sam

I stand by this

except now we know.......

[PCP63]

11 hours ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

Off-Season Gold right here  could be a new Raider fan or two in this thread

Da interwebz never forgets - take credit or crow - either way it's entertainment

although there seem to be a few recent edits in this thread, changing a hack quote to another?

 

I stand by my position. If Carr gets hurt, Raiders will be fine.

[Thai Jet]

On 5/1/2016 at 3:42 PM, Skeptable said:

Like I said earlier most of you will be praising him by year 3. Easily the best QB we have drafted in 30 years

INCORRECT !

[Scott Dierking]

1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

Glennon wasnt as bad as typically advertised. They had the worst group of receivers, a suspect Oline and an overall suspect offensive approach. 

 

When they traded up for Trubisky it basically put Glennon in a "win no matter what" situation, and as soon as he began losing they pulled him (as if HE was the root of the problem) then they put in Trubisky, and what did the Bears do? A whole bunch of nothing, because he had the same issues as Glennon...which was the rest of the offense, outside of the rookie RB Tarik Cohen and Jordan Howard

So during this offseason they did exactly what they needed to do, address the actual problem. They bought in Allen Robinson, Taylor Gabriel and Trey Burton, along with drafting two more WR's. 

 

Glennon got alot of crap given his performance, which wasnt great, but he had no help....neither did Trubisky. Glennon should have just signed with the Jets for less money. He's still be a starter instead of finding himself as the #3 guy in Arizona. The Bears really stuck it to him with that move for Trubisky. I bet if he knew that they were going to do that he wouldnt have signed. 

BUT, that's what happens when you're not a top 10 QB. Sometimes it simply takes years to find the right situation, ask Case Keenum. 

 

Keep the dream alive

[Jimmy 2 Times]

1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

Glennon wasnt as bad as typically advertised. They had the worst group of receivers, a suspect Oline and an overall suspect offensive approach. 

 

When they traded up for Trubisky it basically put Glennon in a "win no matter what" situation, and as soon as he began losing they pulled him (as if HE was the root of the problem) then they put in Trubisky, and what did the Bears do? A whole bunch of nothing, because he had the same issues as Glennon...which was the rest of the offense, outside of the rookie RB Tarik Cohen and Jordan Howard

So during this offseason they did exactly what they needed to do, address the actual problem. They bought in Allen Robinson, Taylor Gabriel and Trey Burton, along with drafting two more WR's. 

 

Glennon got alot of crap given his performance, which wasnt great, but he had no help....neither did Trubisky. Glennon should have just signed with the Jets for less money. He's still be a starter instead of finding himself as the #3 guy in Arizona. The Bears really stuck it to him with that move for Trubisky. I bet if he knew that they were going to do that he wouldnt have signed. 

BUT, that's what happens when you're not a top 10 QB. Sometimes it simply takes years to find the right situation, ask Case Keenum. 

 

 

[Dcat]

I think this thread is now over 2 years old.  Time to euthanize it.  Nobody, I mean absolutely nobody... wants to look at this horrific thread title anymore.  I mean it's even worse than being forced to read SAR's nonstop, psychotically redundant claims that Sanchez was a good QB.   I'd rather look at an image of Joe Theisman's or Teddy's mangled leg on the field.

[Villain The Foe]

2 hours ago, Jimmy 2 Times said:

 

That's funny. Im being told to "let it go" in a thread that was "necro'd" lol. 

 

 

[RoadFan]

3 hours ago, PCP63 said:

I stand by my position. If Carr gets hurt, Raiders will be fine.

Hate to break it to you... but the position you're in isn't quite standing...

It is bent over...

[kelly]

who ?..

 

?

[ZachEY]

4 hours ago, PCP63 said:

I stand by my position. If Carr gets hurt, Raiders will be fine.

The commitment to being wrong is almost admirable.

[JustInFudge]

4 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

The commitment to being wrong is almost admirable.

PCP makes you feel invincible, allegedly.  I wouldnt know. 

[kelly]

3 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

Keep the dream alive

[freestater]

2 hours ago, JiF said:

PCP makes you feel invincible, allegedly.  I wouldnt know. 

 

[Thai Jet]

3 hours ago, JiF said:

PCP makes you feel invincible, allegedly.  I wouldnt know. 

[Rangers9]

Actually it's strange that Hack wasn't even given a chance regular season. And there were opportunities esp last year after McCown went down with three games left. I had no problem with them starting Petty at first (he was higher on the depth chart and deserved the chance to play, too) but he wasn't that good and you think Hack could have been given some snaps or a half. 

[jetstream23]

8 hours ago, RoadFan said:

Hate to break it to you... but the position you're in isn't quite standing...

It is bent over...

I’ve now had a chance to use this pic in two different threads. Thank you. ?

[BurnleyJet]

[Sperm Edwards]

11 hours ago, Rangers9 said:

Actually it's strange that Hack wasn't even given a chance regular season. And there were opportunities esp last year after McCown went down with three games left. I had no problem with them starting Petty at first (he was higher on the depth chart and deserved the chance to play, too) but he wasn't that good and you think Hack could have been given some snaps or a half. 

As much as I sympathize with this from a fan’s standpoint, it’s also a convenient position to take. Imagine Hackenberg was as hopelessly bad as it seems, even noticeably worse than Petty looked, plus maybe throw in if he may have been very unpopular in the locker room to boot. A HC - particularly one on the hot seat as Bowles was believed to be - can’t just put such a QB on the field just because.

Bad enough they were losing games; if Bowles also loses the locker room his tenure as HC is over. We may not give a crap, since Bowles doesn’t seem to be an asset as HC thus far, but we’re not in his shoes either.

If Petty started playing better after a few games, there’s then an opportunity to trade him for something or even keeping him as a backup or #3 (whereas they all - not remotely just Bowles - could see December-2018 Hack was a hopeless prayer that could further cost the locker room). Hindsight of course shows Petty didn’t get any better, and didn’t show enough to stick as a #3 or get a conditional pick in trade, but that’s why it’s hindsight. Had we played Hack instead and he was a laughable joke the players hated risking injury for, it’d then be the same convenient hindsight position to then say we should’ve just given Petty the rest of the games to see if he might’ve started to turn a corner. Put another way: the hindsight you know would’ve been the opposite.

Cheer up: Oakland eating his salary, plus a chance at their 7th round pick, is arguably more in trade for Hackenberg than we’d have gotten if he actually took the field and looked like he did in preseason action (or worse). 

[DonCorleone]

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

As much as I sympathize with this from a fan’s standpoint, it’s also a convenient position to take. Imagine Hackenberg was as hopelessly bad as it seems, even noticeably worse than Petty looked, plus maybe throw in if he may have been very unpopular in the locker room to boot. A HC - particularly one on the hot seat as Bowles was believed to be - can’t just put such a QB on the field just because.

Bad enough they were losing games; if Bowles also loses the locker room his tenure as HC is over. We may not give a crap, since Bowles doesn’t seem to be an asset as HC thus far, but we’re not in his shoes either.

If Petty started playing better after a few games, there’s then an opportunity to trade him for something or even keeping him as a backup or #3 (whereas they all - not remotely just Bowles - could see December-2018 Hack was a hopeless prayer that could further cost the locker room). Hindsight of course shows Petty didn’t get any better, and didn’t show enough to stick as a #3 or get a conditional pick in trade, but that’s why it’s hindsight. Had we played Hack instead and he was a laughable joke the players hated risking injury for, it’d then be the same convenient hindsight position to then say we should’ve just given Petty the rest of the games to see if he might’ve started to turn a corner. Put another way: the hindsight you know would’ve been the opposite.

Cheer up: Oakland eating his salary, plus a chance at their 7th round pick, is arguably more in trade for Hackenberg than we’d have gotten if he actually took the field and looked like he did in preseason action (or worse). 

As much as I agree with you, there also is the possibility that none of the recent QB failures, failed on their own. It is quite possible that all of these "defensive" coaches completely neglected the position. Imagine this'''''' Bowles had no idea that Hack was changing his throwing motion. Huh? That was a problem from day one, why wasn't it addressed immediately? I don't know...Just too many failed QB's. A former NFL great once answered my question with this "No college QB can ever succeed in the NFL when not immediately molded" No genius answer I know, but it has been my impression since Pennington. 

[Sperm Edwards]

On 5/26/2018 at 11:28 AM, DonCorleone said:

As much as I agree with you, there also is the possibility that none of the recent QB failures, failed on their own. It is quite possible that all of these "defensive" coaches completely neglected the position. Imagine this'''''' Bowles had no idea that Hack was changing his throwing motion. Huh? That was a problem from day one, why wasn't it addressed immediately? I don't know...Just too many failed QB's. A former NFL great once answered my question with this "No college QB can ever succeed in the NFL when not immediately molded" No genius answer I know, but it has been my impression since Pennington. 

I get the idea that we want to believe it's one but not the other, since eventually Bowles will get shown the door. These guys were not good prospects. I can forgive Petty not panning out, I guess, since that draft had 2 QBs and we perhaps couldn't trade up for either one. 

Unless you see Hackenberg become a good starting QB, the default blame has to be to the one who keeps bringing in bad QBs, since veteran QBs that come here don't seem to suffer instant setbacks in their careers. Quite the contrary, actually.

Plus as much as it is a nothing answer, the truth is Bowles is right in that some guys just take longer to grow out of bad habits. Some can do it fast (e.g. Wentz) while others take several years. I find it hard to believe that the entire team's coaching staff - plus two "mentor" QBs - both simply ignored both Petty and Hackenberg for 2-3 seasons. 

[Philc1]

On 5/25/2018 at 4:38 PM, Rangers9 said:

Actually it's strange that Hack wasn't even given a chance regular season. And there were opportunities esp last year after McCown went down with three games left. I had no problem with them starting Petty at first (he was higher on the depth chart and deserved the chance to play, too) but he wasn't that good and you think Hack could have been given some snaps or a half. 

Because Mac and Bowles would both be unemployed if that had happened 

[Rangers9]

1 hour ago, Philc1 said:

Because Mac and Bowles would both be unemployed if that had happened 

In a late Dec. game they wouldn't get fired if Hack was terrible and in reality Petty was not good either. You never know until a guy steps on the field how he'll play on gameday. We saw with Tebow when he played for Denver. Terrible at all times esp in practice but they won games with him as Qb. 

[slats]

4 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

In a late Dec. game they wouldn't get fired if Hack was terrible and in reality Petty was not good either. You never know until a guy steps on the field how he'll play on gameday. We saw with Tebow when he played for Denver. Terrible at all times esp in practice but they won games with him as Qb. 

I'd've played Hack just to get a look at him and also to maybe save myself a few second rounders the following year, but they obviously saw nothing at all in him after two years. Dropping to three QBs before training camp for a conditional seventh rounder? That's a statement. Of failure. 

[Philc1]

On 5/28/2018 at 9:54 AM, Rangers9 said:

In a late Dec. game they wouldn't get fired if Hack was terrible and in reality Petty was not good either. You never know until a guy steps on the field how he'll play on gameday. We saw with Tebow when he played for Denver. Terrible at all times esp in practice but they won games with him as Qb. 

Disagree.  Hack would have been the cherry on top of two bad seasons if he saw actual game action