Jump to content
PCP63

Hackenberg Is Our Franchise QB

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Pcola said:

How many games did Lynch actually play in?   And quite possibly it could just be Denver's offense.  Was terrible when it was Manning/Osweiler, was terrible last year.  And maybe give Lynch more than just a handful of snaps before we call him a bust.  Heck Lee was handed a starting spot, played terrible and left in there to learn.

And what has McCown/Petty/Hack shown to anyone that they would be better than Lynch?

Oswellier was easily better in that offense, went to one that was inferior in talent and took a nose dive.  They have CJ Anderson, Demarius Thomas, Emmanuel Sanders, Virgil Green, and Cody Latimer, and according to Football Outsiders a middle of the pack offensive line.  

If Hackenberg gets dinged for not playing, why does Lynch get points for playing poorly in few instances?  By his performance, he was below replacement value according to DYAR as well.  Osweiller with the same offense was 69% better than Lynch, and he was bad enough that the Texans gave up a second round pick to get him off the books.  I'm not calling him a bust, but if people are calling Hackenberg a bust and a terrible pick, then those in that boat that advocated for Lynch should also call out their own mistake with Lynch.  If we're giving Lynch more time to prove himself, perfectly sound IMO, then my argument is simple in that Hackenberg can't be called a bust either.   

What has Lynch shown to be better than them? Heck, I can pull stats from last year showing McCown to be better pretty easily.  So I presume, we're going by potential, at which point both Petty and Hack can be argued to have future potential.  If we're arguing based on performance, Lynch was well below average.  If we're arguing on potential, Petty and Hackenberg have enough potential that it's too early to call them busts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all in on the suck for sam. 

I don't understand the love for Lynch. He has talent, but so does Osweiller. I've said it before, if he was so great the Broncos would have seen enough of him last year to know he's the man. Instead, Semien still looks like the teams starting QB. We simply passed on a prospect. We didn't pass on an Andrew Luck type of prospect. We passed up on a QB who has maybe a 30 pct chance of success and waited a round to take a guy with a 10 percent chances of success. I didn't love the moves, but I am willing to give Hack a shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pcola said:

How many games did Lynch actually play in?   And quite possibly it could just be Denver's offense.  Was terrible when it was Manning/Osweiler, was terrible last year.  And maybe give Lynch more than just a handful of snaps before we call him a bust.  Heck Lee was handed a starting spot, played terrible and left in there to learn.

And what has McCown/Petty/Hack shown to anyone that they would be better than Lynch?

You mind posting the game tape on Hack? I've never seen it. Pretty cool that you have seen it as I don't remember him playing in one - training camp film would be great to see too. Just would love to see for myself how inaccurate he is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2017 at 1:16 PM, thadude said:

Well Dak Prescott can read defenses while this pos Hack throws pick 6's in practice to practice squad losers

 

Hack should be cut

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2016 at 1:59 PM, Fed Hill Jet said:

You cant teach the mental stuff.  This kid knows and loves football strategy and the chess moves at the LOS.  He's got the physical tools.  As long as he is not rattled beyond repair after two tough years, I think our coaching staff can do something with him.  Getting more excited about this pick.

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2017 at 11:22 PM, 20andOut said:

Take a look at the list of QBs picked in the first round over the last ten or fifteen years and see how often (not very) the professional evaluators were right (rarely) in their QB evaluations.

"If Jimmy Clausen isn't a successful quarterback in this league. I'm done. I'm out." - Mel Kiper (yes clausen was drafted in the second) but the point is these evaluators are like weatherman. Correct half the time, just like us. Its a lot of guess work.

he also said that jamarcus russell was ...ok sit down for this one, because it is a direct quote...."JOHN ELWAY-LIKE" and would be an elite quarterback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Greensleeves said:

You mind posting the game tape on Hack? I've never seen it. Pretty cool that you have seen it as I don't remember him playing in one - training camp film would be great to see too. Just would love to see for myself how inaccurate he is. 

I saw him look like an undrafted free agent last preseason.  Add that to the fact that our organization hid him from the media during practice and adamantly refused to dress him when we were desperate for even a below average QB, and it tells everyone watching that we screwed up drafting him.  

I honestly think taking him so early was a mandate from Woody that because of its epic failure, bought Macc and Bowles two additional years.

And I guess if you really want to see Hack play you can go watch all the bad tape from PSU.  It's pretty telling when there is really no good tape on him and the guy who replaced him was light years better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now




×