Jump to content

Start Hackenberg - Geno \ Petty fight for the # 2


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, jack48 said:

Petty and Hackenburg are coming out of 2 different backgrounds.  For Petty it was like landing from Mars.  Hackenburg will sit some, maybe a full season if Fitz comes back and does well.   But I could see him starting a game if we are 4-6.

Hate to say it, but starting 4-6, given our schedule may not be horrible.  Depends on how it happens.  Starting 1-5 or 2-4 is a real possibility.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ugh, let's not destroy another young QB. I really don't care if Geno starts this season. Hackenberg, by all accounts, needs to have his confidence restored. Let's give him plenty of time to do that. 

We'd be better off just shooting him in the head.

Start Hack??????????????????? Good Grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When will Jets fans ever learn!!!! We started an inexperienced Sanchez when everyone in the ENTIRE NFL includ

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

We were looking for post after post from HackEYnberg.

I suppose I'm going to have to... Ugh.. Just dislike the pick so much.

But is it HackEYnberg or HackenbEYrg?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Seriously this is not as ridiculous as people are making it. The reason to sit a player is if the game is too fast for him and if he is learning (especially if slow-learning) the pro game. Hackenberg's best attribute is supposed to be his smarts and prior experience picking up & running a pro style offense within a few months of grauating high school. Not because of his theoretically elite, but horribly raw, physical talent. 

People are way too carried away with this whole idea of QBs getting ruined by starting them right away. Some (most) QBs suck, some don't. The idea that they're permanently ruined by adversity is unprovable. Lynch would need to sit for most or all of his rookie year (possibly more). 

There's also an in between: he can sit for a bit and then come in after that first stretch of tough games is over & let Geno take those beatings (from those opponents and from the fans/press). Then put hackenberg out there when our middle tier of games hits: Baltimore-Cleveland-Miami-LA. 

The two best QB's in the league sat their rookie years. I don't have stats available but I'd be willing to bet anything that QB's fare better with a season on the bench, certainly from the second round down. Not many second rounder start right away and succeed, when they do they generally don't have the red flags Hackenberg brings.

This guy basically needs QB therapy. We have to push the reset button and get his fundamentals sorted, which all fell apart after his Freshman Year and which he's essentially admitted. There are excuses but it I implore you to watch the highlights of the Temple game and tell me that guy's even close to an NFL QB. It's as bad as any Mark Sanchez game in the pro's, not exaggerating. Against Temple. Less than 9 months ago.

It would destroy him. 100%.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gEYno said:

I suppose I'm going to have to... Ugh.. Just dislike the pick so much.

But is it HackEYnberg or HackenbEYrg?

I erased writing HackEYnberg/HackenbEYrg, thinking it was too much.I suppose you could really throw a curve and go with HEYkenberg, but it would throw the pronunskiation too much I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

I erased writing HackEYnberg/HackenbEYrg, thinking it was too much.I suppose you could really throw a curve and go with HEYkenberg, but it would throw the pronunskiation too much I think.

Or, as I feel about this, HindEYnburg?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Irish Jet said:

The two best QB's in the league sat their rookie years. I don't have stats available but I'd be willing to bet anything that QB's fare better with a season on the bench, certainly from the second round down. Not many second rounder start right away and succeed, when they do they generally don't have the red flags Hackenberg brings.

This guy basically needs QB therapy. We have to push the reset button and get his fundamentals sorted, which all fell apart after his Freshman Year and which he's essentially admitted. There are excuses but it I implore you to watch the highlights of the Temple game and tell me that guy's even close to an NFL QB. It's as bad as any Mark Sanchez game in the pro's, not exaggerating. Against Temple. Less than 9 months ago.

It would destroy him. 100%.

And those that didn't: Peyton, Russell Wilson, Flacco, Ryan, and others. It didn't destroy them so your "100%" is ridiculous.

Again, it just depends on the player as well as their prior exposure. If Wilson was in a gimmick offense in college I'm sure he would have sat as a rookie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Irish Jet said:

The two best QB's in the league sat their rookie years. I don't have stats available but I'd be willing to bet anything that QB's fare better with a season on the bench, certainly from the second round down. Not many second rounder start right away and succeed, when they do they generally don't have the red flags Hackenberg brings.

This guy basically needs QB therapy. We have to push the reset button and get his fundamentals sorted, which all fell apart after his Freshman Year and which he's essentially admitted. There are excuses but it I implore you to watch the highlights of the Temple game and tell me that guy's even close to an NFL QB. It's as bad as any Mark Sanchez game in the pro's, not exaggerating. Against Temple. Less than 9 months ago.

It would destroy him. 100%.

Disagree, it the Temple game his OL was just horrible.  Hack OTOH was reading the defenses well.  His OL just couldn't keep him upright.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

And some of the players who were never going to be good and/or who never played in & couldn't handle a pro style offense, going out there and being terrible, and spoiling the fans into believing that therefore all QBs need to sit for a year (preferably 2 or 3). 

Sanchez, Geno, Petty...these guys weren't ready as rookies, or were/are never going to be consistently good anyway. There is no "rule" for all QBs. Most of them didn't play in or have much exposure to huddling up, surveying a defense, taking snaps from center, going through planned progressions, etc. Those guys typically should sit right away, unless they seem to pick everything up over that first summer in savant-like fashion.

If it all comes back to him, and they think he's good to go, I'm fine with it. If he still looks hesitant or too panicky or afraid of contact, then clearly he needs to sit for a while. But "sit them all" isn't any more valid of a requirement than "start them all" IMO. Depends on the individual kid.

Except there's absolutely no way to possibly know that they would have sucked anyways, you just know you didn't give them the ideal preparation - maybe some guys are better at "learning by doing" but I'd assume it's tiny minority. You don't know that a QB would have been ruined either, but you can safely bet that they improved in that time.

If he's flashing outrageous talent in pre-season then maybe take a chance, but I don't see any possible way a guy with his accuracy issues is making that leap. It's not going to happen. There's no need to overwhelm the guy. We've invested a 2nd Rounder in him, we have to invest the time. It's the most important position by far so we have ensure we're giving him every possible chance. By throwing him in next season we are not doing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really don't see the issue with rolling with Geno/Hack/Petty.  We finally have a good situation for any QB.  Good D, coach, OC, Marshall/Decker/Forte.  Hard to beat that.

Don't force anyone to start.  No pressure on Hack.  He wasn't a 1st rounder that has to start.  But he has the skills and head to do the job.  Watch his FRESHMAN highlights.  Really damn impressive.  Actually made 2/3/4+ reads while in the pocket...  Fitz with 47 years of experience still can't do that.  Not to mention pre-snap adjustments, play-action n so on...

Take any restrictions off all 3 of 'em and let the best QB start.

I'd expect a battle between Geno and Hack for the starter.  But who knows, maybe Petty could surprise.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

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.

This is why we cant have nice things.....

 

If we end up with the 8th overall pick next year and don't use it to trade up for a true franchise QB then it might be all I can take mentally and physically.

I'll officially snap when people on this board try to convince me that Hackenberg is the "one" and needs "more time" to blossom into that franchise player we have been waiting forever for that he was his superstar freshman year back at the good ole days of Bill O'Brien's Penn State....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

And those that didn't: Peyton, Russell Wilson, Flacco, Ryan, and others. It didn't destroy them so your "100%" is ridiculous.

Again, it just depends on the player as well as their prior exposure. If Wilson was in a gimmick offense in college I'm sure he would have sat as a rookie.

What are you talking about?

The "100%" was directed purely at Hackenberg himself, who just quite visibly isn't close to the level required - Unlike the list of studs who were tearing up the college scene that you've just listed. There's no comparison whatsoever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Irish Jet said:

Except there's absolutely no way to possibly know that they would have sucked anyways, you just know you didn't give them the ideal preparation - maybe some guys are better at "learning by doing" but I'd assume it's tiny minority. You don't know that a QB would have been ruined either, but you can safely bet that they improved in that time.

If he's flashing outrageous talent in pre-season then maybe take a chance, but I don't see any possible way a guy with his accuracy issues is making that leap. It's not going to happen. There's no need to overwhelm the guy. We've invested a 2nd Rounder in him, we have to invest the time. It's the most important position by far so we have ensure we're giving him every possible chance. By throwing him in next season we are not doing that.

No, but if we'd started Kellen Clemens right away I'm sure you would have pointed to that as the reason he sucked.

I think there's a high chance he won't be ready, but if he is really wow'ing them over the summer this is a great offense - both in scheme and surrounding personnel - for a kid to cut his teeth with. Again, starting as a rookie doesn't mean starting him Sept 11 against the Bengals, followed by a road game against the Bills 4 days later.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

Disagree, it the Temple game his OL was just horrible.  Hack OTOH was reading the defenses well.  His OL just couldn't keep him upright.  

The OL and the QB can be terrible together.

He wasn't reading and adjusting to the pressure at all. He was lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After his freshman season, SB Nation wrote an article stating that Hack resembled Andrew Luck and Tom Brady, which made sense. They're all 6'4" and somewhere between 220 and 240. They all have rocket arms. They are all very good at moving through the pocket.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/6/19/5814212/christian-hackenberg-penn-state-quarterback?_ga=1.117323397.207477050.1462041007

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Irish Jet said:

What are you talking about?

The "100%" was directed purely at Hackenberg himself, who just quite visibly isn't close to the level required - Unlike the list of studs who were tearing up the college scene that you've just listed. There's no comparison whatsoever. 

They are studs because you NOW know they're studs. You have no provable #science that would show how Aaron Rodgers would have been ruined if he went out there right away with some kinks to still iron out. 

Every player is different. If he came from a gimmick offense, I agree it would be too much. Lots of guys have strong arms & prototypical stature. His appeal - such as it is - is what he has upstairs. Or that's what we're being sold, anyway. He isn't Paxton Lynch who doesn't know sh*t and whose Wonderlic suggests there's a good chance he'll be a slow learner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

No, but if we'd started Kellen Clemens right away I'm sure you would have pointed to that as the reason he sucked.

I think there's a high chance he won't be ready, but if he is really wow'ing them over the summer this is a great offense - both in scheme and surrounding personnel - for a kid to cut his teeth with. Again, starting as a rookie doesn't mean starting him Sept 11 against the Bengals, followed by a road game against the Bills 4 days later.

I'm not saying it's the reason they sucked at all! Not once. Gun to my head I don't even believe Hackenberg is going to make it regardless, but I f*cking know that if we send out the guy that I'm watching in these 2015 games then he might actually set records for incompetence. He's SO far away and is consistently struggling to do the most basic things. 

I'm pretty sure he wont be wowing and even if he is I'd think that rate of improvement may be worth preserving. I know what you mean and I'd still argue he shouldn't see the field at all. I don't think he will either. I'd give him time, hope he gets his sh*t together and have him battle with Petty for the starting spot. I just don't see the incentive to rush him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maxman said:

Let's go. Start Hackenberg. Keep the game plan simple. Stress that he just has to avoid turnovers. Let him learn on the job.

Geno and Petty fight it out for the # 2 spot.

The only way you bring Fitzpatrick back is if he takes under 5 million per year. No need to overpay the future is here.

Let's make the future now.

2-14 the next three years, here we come.  At least we'll get good draft picks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Irish Jet said:

I'm not saying it's the reason they sucked at all! Not once. Gun to my head I don't even believe Hackenberg is going to make it regardless, but I f*cking know that if we send out the guy that I'm watching in these 2015 games then he might actually set records for incompetence. He's SO far away and is consistently struggling to do the most basic things. 

I'm pretty sure he wont be wowing and even if he is I'd think that rate of improvement may be worth preserving. I know what you mean and I'd still argue he shouldn't see the field at all. I don't think he will either. I'd give him time, hope he gets his sh*t together and have him battle with Petty for the starting spot. I just don't see the incentive to rush him. 

How about this as incentive? He'll be so bad, combined with a crappola schedule, that we get a high enough pick to draft a good QB next year. 

Checkmate, bitch. ;) 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, elgoman said:

There's more value in having Geno start and Hackenberg sit. This is Geno's contract year so there's a decent chance he shows greatly improved performance. Hackenberg isn't ready this year anyway.

I really have no fear about letting Geno start this year. As you said, he's in the final year of his deal. Maybe he turns it on after a year on the bench and something to prove. Maybe. I feel pretty good about Gailey and Marshall and Forte helping him along to a decent season. Maybe the Jets'll even want to keep him! Imagine that! Or maybe he plays we'll  enough to get a top backup QB type contract, netting the Jets a third or fourth round comp pick. 

Hackenberg got so beat up in college, and it appears that he got some crappy coaching, too. I strongly prefer he sit and learn as a rookie. He needs to relearn some fundamentals and get his confidence back. Let's please give him a chance to do that. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jetlife33 said:

mobilityinthepocket.gif 

Good example except for the "innate feel for pressure" line.  Bit of a reach there.  Not saying he doesn't feel pressure well, just saying that's not a good example of it.  Maybe if that was from the blindside, but if I had a 6'5 320lb dude 18" from me in my line of sight charging at me like a hungry bear...  I'd move too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

They are studs because you NOW know they're studs. You have no provable #science that would show how Aaron Rodgers would have been ruined if he went out there right away with some kinks to still iron out. 

Every player is different. If he came from a gimmick offense, I agree it would be too much. Lots of guys have strong arms & prototypical stature. His appeal - such as it is - is what he has upstairs. Or that's what we're being sold, anyway. He isn't Paxton Lynch who doesn't know sh*t and whose Wonderlic suggests there's a good chance he'll be a slow learner.

No. They were studs in college - Definitively. Hackenberg was not. That is the difference. 

You're just using hyperbolic examples of things I'm not even arguing. I never once said that Rodgers, Brady or anyone else wouldn't have coped - Just that I don't think it's possible any harm was done to them by sitting. I'm not saying all rookie's should sit, I'm saying this rookie should sit. He is a project, maybe not in the traditional sense, but he needs serious work. Pretty much every evaluation indicates, in fact highlights as much.  

What he has upstairs actually concerns me because I think he may already have been permanently damaged with the pressure, hits and sacks he faced at Penn. For all his intelligence he was never able to cope with the pressure and never seemed able to adapt. Obviously the coaching staff have to take their share of the blame, but to think he'd be ready to start behind the Jets line any time soon is insanity.

Have you actually seen him play? Because I know you hold QB's to pretty high standard. Fitzpatrick looks like the love-child of Joe Montana and God in comparison. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

How about this as incentive? He'll be so bad, combined with a crappola schedule, that we get a high enough pick to draft a good QB next year. 

Checkmate, bitch. ;) 

The Jimmy Clauson approach.

I love how that was the first positive EY found in the pick, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Irish Jet said:

No. They were studs in college - Definitively. Hackenberg was not. That is the difference. 

You're just using hyperbolic examples of things I'm not even arguing. I never once said that Rodgers, Brady or anyone else wouldn't have coped - Just that I don't think it's possible any harm was done to them by sitting. I'm not saying all rookie's should sit, I'm saying this rookie should sit. He is a project, maybe not in the traditional sense, but he needs serious work. Pretty much every evaluation indicates, in fact highlights as much.  

What he has upstairs actually concerns me because I think he may already have been permanently damaged with the pressure, hits and sacks he faced at Penn. For all his intelligence he was never able to cope with the pressure and never seemed able to adapt. Obviously the coaching staff have to take their share of the blame, but to think he'd be ready to start behind the Jets line any time soon is insanity.

Have you actually seen him play? Because I know you hold QB's to pretty high standard. Fitzpatrick looks like the love-child of Joe Montana and God in comparison. 

It's also possible that there isn't much benefit, and will only delay some needed on-field lumps. There are QBs with whom that's a good thing (Peyton) and some that maybe isn't (Sanchez, Geno). But there's no provable way of saying that a QB was ruined (let alone permanently ruined) by starting him too early. Not unless he suffers a career-altering injury, I guess.

And no I have not seen him play other than a bunch of clips (both good and bad). Like I just said to 'fish, it's my understanding that will not improve my opinion of the pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike135 said:

Good example except for the "innate feel for pressure" line.  Bit of a reach there.  Not saying he doesn't feel pressure well, just saying that's not a good example of it.  Maybe if that was from the blindside, but if I had a 6'5 320lb dude 18" from me in my line of sight charging at me like a hungry bear...  I'd move too.

Qm9jgLX.gif 

#innate , lol. I agree, some lines there are reaches, but just wanted to show some positive plays that this kid has had, he looked pretty good in a pro system. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jetlife33 said:

Qm9jgLX.gif 

#innate , lol. I agree, some lines there are reaches, but just wanted to show some positive plays that this kid has had, he looked pretty good in a pro system. 

Definitely.  Thanks for the posts.  Great to see a legit QB instead of the one read and run QBs that come out of college nowadays.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...