ProFootballFocus slaughters Christian Hackenberg: rates him as UNDRAFTABLE

[T0mShane]

4 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Would you say Hackenberg has shown flashes of greatness?

When will we get to the "grit" part?

[BowlesMovement]

Just now, T0mShane said:

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.

It's funny, many people killed Sandy Alderson for years with the Mets, they all absolutely knew better then Sandy. Sandy actually knew what he was doing, every once in a while, GMs know what they are doing, maybe Mac does?

[T0mShane]

1 minute ago, JetsFanatic said:

You loved this guy before the draft why all the whining now?

I have never liked Hackenberg.

[Paradis]

7 minutes ago, Dcat said:

You state an opinion, not founded on a solid set of facts, and then preach it as though it is fact.  "Biggest" & "most unlikely" are your own opinion-based, unsupported claims that you present as if they were actual facts instread of your speculation.  .  Yeah, okay Paradis.   Can't take you seriously when you will run your agenda and exaggerate your own opinions to fool others into thinking you are presenting facts

what the fck are you talking about? This is about Hackenberg - the most polarizing player in the draft ffs... why are you trying to pretend that's not the case?? It would be a lot more respectable for to just say - I personally like Hack, and i like his upside... That's great. Good for you... But get the hell out of here for giving me a hard time. He's the kind of pick that splits a fan base. Stop acting like that's not the case. 

[T0mShane]

2 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

I might not like his play but the mitigating circumstances surrounding him and Maccagnan to me has earned the benefit of the doubt to wait until we see how this pans out

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.

[dbatesman]

5 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

When will we get to the "grit" part?

He stayed at Penn State even though he could just have easily gone and failed somewhere else, this kid's a winner

[Irish Jet]

19 minutes ago, Dcat said:

LOL.  Tell me about Lynch's "pocket presence".  He has none whatsoever, at least not in a pro set, and Hack has had success in a pro set.  And more importantly, for all you claim that you "can't"  fix  mechanics or pocket presence,  you certainly can't fix lack of football smarts (which multiple scouts referred to about Lynch) and lack of intelligence (obviously Lynch is even dumber than Geno, with a wonderlich that is nearly brain-dead caliber).  That's a bigger spoiler by leaps and bounds than yours.  Hackenburg has shown better football smarts, more intelligence, more pro ready experience, as strong an arm,as has Lynch. Your assumptions about Lynch are unfounded and unsupported.  But keep shooting from the hip.  Eventually you'll get lucky and make sense.

Bizarre statement, in fact he's been praised for this in just about every evaluation I've seen. Lynch showed pretty excellent evasiveness in the pocket and was sacked just 15 times in over 477 dropbacks according to NFL.com. Hackenberg nearly matched than in one game. When the plays broke down he seemed to make pretty good decisions.

You're right that he may be completely oblivious to the concepts but the idea that you "can't fix lack of football smarts" is utterly asinine. Not only can you do it but you'd expect him to learn and improve as you would any young player. He doesn't have to be Peyton Manning to be able to use his talent, which he undoubtedly has. Dan Marino scored lower on the wonderlic, hardly the greatest indicator of ability. There is a lot to question about Lynch, his scheme was stat friendly - A lot of screens and short passes - And I'd imagine a fair chunk of his passing stats were YAC. The thing is, even at something that basic, he was head and shoulder ahead of Hack. He hasn't consistently played top competition which is a fair criticism, but like Wentz you can only judge by what you see and he can only beat what's put in front of him.

I can't see any argument for Hack over Lynch. The mental stuff goes out the window when you consider our guy might already be scrambled beyond repair with trauma alone. Both are physically pretty much perfect for the QB position although Lynch has some freakish athletic qualities on top of that (although he may need to bulk up), both are capable of making every throw but only one of them demonstrated consistent accuracy. Lynch blows him away with production, which you'd expect given the standard of opponent but it goes beyond the stats - Lynch simply looks the far superior passer.  

I did admittedly spend a lot of time trying to convince myself Lynch would be great after initially not being so high on him because I was sure we'd draft him. The thing is I've had the same approach with Hackenberg since we drafted him. One didn't take much convincing. The other...

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, SoFlaJets said:

Before reading any of this thread the initial thought that comes to mind is this; Could it be that perhaps the people who DO the job of scouting and assessing talent, brains, character, and growth potential might just know a few things about Christian Hackenberg that we don't?

  

That rationale would be easier to swallow if Elway+Kubiak didn't trade up to grab Lynch instead of trading down to draft Hackenberg.

We'll see. Hope they were right. 

[UnitedWhofans]

2 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

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.

It's not just his peripherals. That first year under Bill O'Brien he was very solid in a pro style offense. I'm convinced that Bill and Macc takes about Hackenberg when Mac was back in Houston 

[SoFlaJets]

5 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

When will we get to the "grit" part?

Right as soon as someone uses the good old tried and true description about his passes by saying "he has zip"on his ball (stop it), after that TS... the proverbial gloves are OFF.... 

[CanadaSteve]

5 minutes ago, Paradis said:

what the fck are you talking about? This is about Hackenberg - the most polarizing player in the draft ffs... why are you trying to pretend that's not the case?? It would be a lot more respectable for to just say - I personally like Hack, and i like his upside... That's great. Good for you... But get the hell out of here for giving me a hard time. He's the kind of pick that splits a fan base. Stop acting like that's not the case. 

While yes he is polarizing Paradis, you have to admit this kid was special in his freshman season.  How many freshman's can look off safeties, change coverage scheme's, call audibles, and recognize defensive coverage.  All right out of high school!  This kid got the snot beat out of him for over two years, and was terribly coached.  They changed his footwork on him, but he stayed loyal to the program and NEVER complained.  How is he not worth the risk?  We need to find our guy at QB, and we need to keep drafting them until we find one.  Give this kid a year away from being pounded, learning the NFL, and us rebuilding the line next year....I think he is going to be good.

[Paradis]

2 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

While yes he is polarizing Paradis, you have to admit this kid was special in his freshman season.  How many freshman's can look off safeties, change coverage scheme's, call audibles, and recognize defensive coverage.  All right out of high school!  This kid got the snot beat out of him for over two years, and was terribly coached.  They changed his footwork on him, but he stayed loyal to the program and NEVER complained.  How is he not worth the risk?  We need to find our guy at QB, and we need to keep drafting them until we find one.  Give this kid a year away from being pounded, learning the NFL, and us rebuilding the line next year....I think he is going to be good.

I get what the deal is with him - but my feelings are - let someone else take that job on... Christ, as if it's not hard enough already trying to get the most out of the GOOD ones - let alone to take a chance on the fcked up ones.. YEESH. 

You guys gotta admit, this has ALL the makings of another entry into the Jets Draft blunder reel on youtube. The glove fits. 

[Dcat]

2 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

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.

that's the kind of statement one makes to deflect from a question or claim.  Nice try.  Again, the stats from Penn St last two seasons is unpersuasive due to the trainwreck that was Penn State.  It is you who ignores this reality.  You ignore that your Jets brain trust had Lynch in for a full day, as they did with hackenburg and Cook, in which they had the chance to valuate these three candidates extensively... far more extensively than you or me or anyone here, and liked what they saw in Hackenburg more than Lynch.  And that is a FACT. I'm not ignoring stats,but I am prioritizing what I think is meaningful, and the extensive scrutiny Mac, Bowles and the offensive coaching staff gave to all 3 QBs rates far higher on the priority totem pole than PFF's rankings or fans' like us reading pundits predictions and arm-chair evaluations.  

FACT: All 3 of them spent a day at Florham Park.  If the Jets had liked what they saw in Cook or Lynch (over Hack), then either would now be a Jet now instead of Hack.  You ignore the most important factor: That the Jets did their due diligence and didn't necessarily rely on the pundits' rankings and stats that you claim are more important in this case.

So again, thanks for your attempt at deflection.  But you and the other butt-hurt Lynchkins have posted nothing to convince me that Lynch would have been a better choice. And continuing to proclaim this as though it were a factual statement isn't going to change anything. 

You didn't get the guy you wanted (and I did not necessarily want Hack, BTW), so here you are.  

Curious, did you spend a full day with each of those guys before formulating your preference for Lynch?  

[Dcat]

18 minutes ago, Paradis said:

what the fck are you talking about? This is about Hackenberg - the most polarizing player in the draft ffs... why are you trying to pretend that's not the case?? It would be a lot more respectable for to just say - I personally like Hack, and i like his upside... That's great. Good for you... But get the hell out of here for giving me a hard time. He's the kind of pick that splits a fan base. Stop acting like that's not the case. 

"Biggest" and "most likely" , and even the word "reclamation" are not your personal opinions?  You really think those are facts!  Wow.  Amazing. Polarization comes from differing opinions.  And you try to advance yours cleverly with charged phrases like these.  

[dbatesman]

6 minutes ago, Dcat said:

that's the kind of statement one makes to deflect from a question or claim.  Nice try.  Again, the stats from Penn St last two seasons is unpersuasive due to the trainwreck that was Penn State.  It is you who ignores this reality.  You ignore that your Jets brain trust had Lynch in for a full day, as they did with hackenburg and Cook, in which they had the chance to valuate these three candidates extensively... far more extensively than you or me or anyone here, and liked what they saw in Hackenburg more than Lynch.  And that is a FACT. I'm not ignoring stats,but I am prioritizing what I think is meaningful, and the extensive scrutiny Mac, Bowles and the offensive coaching staff gave to all 3 QBs rates far higher on the priority totem pole than PFF's rankings or fans' like us reading pundits predictions and arm-chair evaluations.  

FACT: All 3 of them spent a day at Florham Park.  If the Jets had liked what they saw in Cook or Lynch (over Hack), then either would now be a Jet now instead of Hack.  You ignore the most important factor: That the Jets did their due diligence and didn't necessarily rely on the pundits' rankings and stats that you claim are more important in this case.

So again, thanks for your attempt at deflection.  But you and the other butt-hurt Lynchkins have posted nothing to convince me that Lynch would have been a better choice. And continuing to proclaim this as though it were a factual statement isn't going to change anything. 

You didn't get the guy you wanted (and I did not necessarily want Hack, BTW), so here you are.  

Curious, did you spend a full day with each of those guys before formulating your preference for Lynch?  

How much time have you spent with Hackenberg?

[T0mShane]

5 minutes ago, Dcat said:

that's the kind of statement one makes to deflect from a question or claim.  Nice try.  Again, the stats from Penn St last two seasons is unpersuasive due to the trainwreck that was Penn State.  It is you who ignores this reality.  You ignore that your Jets brain trust had Lynch in for a full day, as they did with hackenburg and Cook, in which they had the chance to valuate these three candidates extensively... far more extensively than you or me or anyone here, and liked what they saw in Hackenburg more than Lynch.  And that is a FACT. I'm not ignoring stats,but I am prioritizing what I think is meaningful, and the extensive scrutiny Mac, Bowles and the offensive coaching staff gave to all 3 QBs rates far higher on the priority totem pole than PFF's rankings or fans' like us reading pundits predictions and arm-chair evaluations.  

FACT: All 3 of them spent a day at Florham Park.  If the Jets had liked what they saw in Cook or Lynch (over Hack), then either would now be a Jet now instead of Hack.  You ignore the most important factor: That the Jets did their due diligence and didn't necessarily rely on the pundits' rankings and stats that you claim are more important in this case.

So again, thanks for your attempt at deflection.  But you and the other butt-hurt Lynchkins have posted nothing to convince me that Lynch would have been a better choice. And continuing to proclaim this as though it were a factual statement isn't going to change anything. 

You didn't get the guy you wanted (and I did not necessarily want Hack, BTW), so here you are.  

Curious, did you spend a full day with each of those guys before formulating your preference for Lynch?  

"They sat down with them" is the entirety of your defense of the pick. Congrats. Enjoy the door prizes. 

[Dcat]

Just now, dbatesman said:

How much time have you spent with Hackenberg?

none.  But the GM and coaching staff of the team I root for spend tons of time with all of them.  Far more time than the detractors here condemning the pick based on pundits' rankings, which is all any of you are really doing.  That time spent with the prospects by the Jets team means more to me than anything you or the other detractors have posted thus far, which happen to be various incarnations of the same opinions being presented as though they are iron clad evaluations.  

So let's leave it at that. I just have a little more faith in the FO evaluation than any of us here or Mel Kipers of the world who are almost always wrong.

[SpartanJet]

I didn't know that "time spent with them" erases years of sucking at a position.  I didnt know it made up for wild innacurate passing or small hands.  Good to know.

[jetscrazey]

John Gruden, super bowl winning head coach, said he thought Hackenberg would be a 1st round pick after putting him through his QB camp.  I'll take that judgment over PFF's flawed statistical analysis.

[Dcat]

27 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

"They sat down with them" is the entirety of your defense of the pick. Congrats. Enjoy the door prizes. 

a fact that you painfully ignore, and the most important fact at all.  The extent that butt-hurt fans will go to defend their opinions is just astonishing.  And of course, it's not at all "the entirety" of my position.  What a douchey thing to claim.  Here are a couple of the other factors I've mentioned: Hack has more pro-like experience in the offense he played for under O'Brien.  It was one year, but he showed good stuff before Penn St became a mess and many good players left and were replaced by scrubs.  As a result, Hack should be ready to play a lot quicker than Lynch.  Hack is a lot smarter (well anyone would be) than Lynch, who is said to not only lack football smarts, but is just plain dumb in general.  Lynch reported to have interviewed poorly at the combine in in several one-on-ones since.  

Geez, you guys act like Lynch is some NFL ready sure thing.  Just ridiculous.  His stupidity alone should make you guys worry.  He's as much a question mark as Hack, and perhaps moreso. 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

54 minutes ago, Dcat said:

The extent that butt-hurt fans will go to defend their opinions is just astonishing.

Right?

[JoJoTownsell1]

56 minutes ago, Dcat said:

a fact that you painfully ignore, and the most important fact at all.  The extent that butt-hurt fans will go to defend their opinions is just astonishing.  And of course, it's not at all "the entirety" of my position.  What a douchey thing to claim.  Here are a couple of the other factors I've mentioned: Hack has more pro-like experience in the offense he played for under O'Brien.  It was one year, but he showed good stuff before Penn St became a mess and many good players left and were replaced by scrubs.  As a result, Hack should be ready to play a lot quicker than Lynch.  Hack is a lot smarter (well anyone would be) than Lynch, who is said to not only lack football smarts, but is just plain dumb in general.  Lynch reported to have interviewed poorly at the combine in in several one-on-ones since.  

Geez, you guys act like Lynch is some NFL ready sure thing.  Just ridiculous.  His stupidity alone should make you guys worry.  He's as much a question mark as Hack, and perhaps moreso. 

If Hack had played in a spread offense like Lynch and Geno played in, he would have passed for 30 tds and 6 Ints also. Everyone obsessed with college stats conveniently ignore the fact that Geno put up something like 42tds and 5 ints in his senior year in a system similar to what Lynch played in. 

Meanwhile, Hack was great in a pro style offense playing in the Big ten then fell apart in a new system with ZERO supporting cast. There is more to scouting than "Gee, look at that QBs stats." 

[predator_05]

2 hours ago, BowlesMovement said:

This!!! For better or worse, Mac is our GM. The guy brought in his own scouts, and is known for being a great scout and a football guy. It amazes me how people who probably don't have 1/1000 the amount of info on a player can make statements with such conviction. A tiny bit of self awareness and humility often goes a very long way.

If we're deferring to professional opinion, we might as well shut down this forum.

Fans watch the games and pay their salaries, we're entitled to an opinion, however uninformed or off-the-cuff it may be.

[predator_05]

See, i get that he's a project and all, and i can see why they would draft him on the basis of attributes. But why spend a 2nd rounder on him? Teams weren't queuing up to draft him. That's valuable draft capital, and we could have easily secured an immediate starter with this pick.

[artemusclyde]

2 hours ago, predator_05 said:

See, i get that he's a project and all, and i can see why they would draft him on the basis of attributes. But why spend a 2nd rounder on him? Teams weren't queuing up to draft him. That's valuable draft capital, and we could have easily secured an immediate starter with this pick.

 

Cause all it takes is one team. Not to mention that the Texans, whose head coach coached him in college, traded up in front of us, I can see why the Jets were starting to get nervous about waiting on him and decided to pull the trigger on him. And honestly, he's a lot less of a project then Lynch is, Lynch needs both his footwork and throwing motion reworked, while Hackenberg mainly needs to fix up his footwork and stay true to his throwing motion, will sometimes revert back to a baseball throwing motion but that's being nitpicky. Also, he does have really good footwork when under center, and hell he even shows good footwork under the shotgun but he get's lazy with it. I'd feel a lot more comfortable starting Hackenberg this year then Lynch, Hackenberg showed he has the ability to go through reads and understand protections, while Lynch was pretty much in a one read offense. I like Hackenberg, he's got a lot of potential and you can see it on tape, he'll make absolutely amazing NFL level throws into tight coverages showing that he has the arm and accuracy to make it in the NFL. 

[SoFlaJets]

I was listening to Mike Westhoff just now in his analysis over on the Jets Blog from SNY and he was saying that the kid played with a horrible O-line and was sacked 82 times over his Junior and Senior years and that the WRs were also terrible. The Man With The Cane said that he wanted him for the Jets on the very day that Geno Smith got punched in the face. Erik Coleman said Geno is odd man out, so if for no other reason we all have to like Hackenberg for the same reason that we liked Favre (who got rid of Chad for us). If he can get us out of the Geno Smith game then he's a plus in my eyes.