Can Hackenberg really be this bad? UGH..

[JohnnyLV]

On 9/2/2016 at 1:34 PM, Beerfish said:

Well when I see that 'we all knew he was a project' statement I keep waiting for the logical follow up to go with it, that being, Our gm really screwed up by over drafting such a massive project, but that part never comes.  And hey who says drafting such a player is a good move at all in the 1st place?  There are buckets of players with big arms that can do anything else, why not draft one of them in the 7th round?

Hackensure is MUCH more than a big arm. He is one of the most football smart QB'S to come out in a while. He has an elite arm not a big one.  He has ideal size. He showed a glimpse even this preseason of what he,can be. He us familiar with the pro offense. He us very very different than most QB  projects. Christians upside is best QB in the NFL. Now I think Petty is our future but I think people will be shocked at his development next preseason.

[thebuzzardman]

Just now, Il Mostro said:

The OP could not have been more of an empty vessel in his post.  Obviously, a real thinker.  Moreover, the topic is not even relevant.  The FO picked him as a project based on what potential they saw.  Hackenberg was never going to be a factor this year.  Irrelevant sniping and whining, at best.

Well, the naysayers have got to me, so now I have to consider that no one, outside Williams, that the Jets drafted can be any good at all, since the GM and scouts suck such balls at talent evaluation. I was looking forward to seeing J Marshall, Peake and Anderson - at least one of them doing well, but since it's so clear to a good number of posters here that the GM and scouts don't know what the f*ck they are doing, all those guys will probably suck, along with the tiny linebacker and the edge rusher they picked up. 

[CanadaSteve]

4 minutes ago, kmnj said:

actually lots of questioned his character right or wrong but your statement is NOT accurate

Complaints about stating the obvious during private meetings, which he publicly denied, is not what I would call character issues.  Staying loyal to Penn State when he could have abandoned them, studying the game, committed to improvement....those are what I call character.

 

[Beerfish]

1 minute ago, Il Mostro said:

The OP could not have been more of an empty vessel in his post.  Obviously, a real thinker.  Moreover, the topic is not even relevant.  The FO picked him as a project based on what potential they saw.  Hackenberg was never going to be a factor this year.  Irrelevant sniping and whining, at best.  In my book, it is idiotic. 

Here are the facts as I see them.

- We are told he was taken as a huge project when that was not put out front early in the process at all or just after him being drafted.  Only after he struggled very badly has this line of thinking been  tossed out.

- He was a 2nd round pick, huge projects are not take in the 2nd round as a rule.  Guys drafted that early while not meant to start right away are usually looked at a s #3 guy at the very worse and often more than that.

- The team has youth and depth issues at Oline, TE and in the secondary with which a 2nd rounder could have helped.

- The NJ Jets a team with a long history of lousy QB drafts and QBs that start out with high hopes that soon fade and this is about the worst looking QB from the get go we have seen.

- Because we took this guy so early he has to be kept around on the roster, he may even influence where and when we take a Qb next year.

As you said, all talk of him will die down unless we get a mass of injuries so I wouldn't worry about this type of thread being on going but people have every right to take this pick to task in a big way.

 

[Paradis]

11 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Of the 13 picks he has had, all 13 are still with the team, and he has found multiple un-drafted players who are on the roster. What more can you want from a GM?  I get you do not like the Hackenburg pick so early, and truth be told, I would have preferred waiting a round or two to get him.  He probably would have been there.  But I won't fault a GM who is taking QB's every year until he finds one.  If Fitz goes down or has a bad year, we will be picking high next year anyway.  Would it be high enough to get a more blue-chip QB prospect? We shall see.

So, criticism to Macc?  Quite possible, but I won't criticize until Hack is flipping burgers instead of playing football. 

Fair enough, but I think recent bouts of ineptitude by previous regimes has lowered your expectations. Being washed out in under 18 months is something you'll only see in Idzik's monolith of death tour. It's not as black and white as that however. I don't think his drafts have been "bad", but there's legitimate questions surrounding redundancy, value and decision making. His career will be tied in Jets Nation to Hackenberg (as it should) and for some - Lynch 

[joewilly12]

23 minutes ago, PCP63 said:

Typical Jets fans. One terrible preseason performance, and he should be out of the league.

I didn't write the review. 

[dbatesman]

26 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

But I won't fault a GM who is taking QB's every year until he finds one. 

Great. What if he passes on a QB prospect next year because of his investment in Hackenberg?

[Warfish]

23 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Of the 13 picks he has had, all 13 are still with the team, and he has found multiple un-drafted players who are on the roster. What more can you want from a GM?

Just want to point out the obvious problem here:  

Judging a GM on "if his picks are still here" loses it's critical value when we realize that it's up to the GM who selected these players to decide to keep/not keep them.  Most GM's keep "their" guys over the last guy's guys or other random guys.

An argument could be made that a GM might keep one of "his guys" despite one of the others being better, to make themselves look better.  This is especially true if the talent gap is smaller, or salary an issue.

Macc is, generally and excepting Hack, doing a good overall job IMO.  But  him keeping the guys he picked over the guys the last guy picked is not why I think that.

[Beerfish]

7 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Hackensure is MUCH more than a big arm. He is one of the most football smart QB'S to come out in a while. He has an elite arm not a big one.  He has ideal size. He showed a glimpse even this preseason of what he,can be. He us familiar with the pro offense. He us very very different than most QB  projects. Christians upside is best QB in the NFL. Now I think Petty is our future but I think people will be shocked at his development next preseason.

I've seen no evidence of this big big arm to tell you the truth, right from the combine throws, many of his passes get there but are wobbly, Petty seems to have a better arm.

He had one very solid drive in the preseason, he had a couple of terrible plays in the 2nd game, int and grounding his comp % was a glorious 36 %

If he's as smart as people say then the pro offense should be no problem for him.

I am happy so many people have such high hopes for this guy but he has shown almost nothing over the last 2 college years, pre draft and in camp to suggest he is going to be good.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

I've seen no evidence of this big big arm to tell you the truth, right from the combine throws, many of his passes get there but are wobbly, Petty seems to have a better arm.

He had one very solid drive in the preseason, he had a couple of terrible plays in the 2nd game, int and grounding his comp % was a glorious 36 %

If he's as smart as people say then the pro offense should be no problem for him.

I am happy so many people have such high hopes for this guy but he has shown almost nothing over the last 2 college years, pre draft and in camp to suggest he is going to be good.

The thing I can't get past is that O'Brien either didn't want him or couldn't sell his GM on him (nor a Fitz+Hackenberg duo) instead of Osweiller. 

[Integrity28]

27 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Here are the facts as I see them.

- We are told he was taken as a huge project when that was not put out front early in the process at all or just after him being drafted.  Only after he struggled very badly has this line of thinking been  tossed out.

- He was a 2nd round pick, huge projects are not take in the 2nd round as a rule.  Guys drafted that early while not meant to start right away are usually looked at a s #3 guy at the very worse and often more than that.

- The team has youth and depth issues at Oline, TE and in the secondary with which a 2nd rounder could have helped.

- The NJ Jets a team with a long history of lousy QB drafts and QBs that start out with high hopes that soon fade and this is about the worst looking QB from the get go we have seen.

- Because we took this guy so early he has to be kept around on the roster, he may even influence where and when we take a Qb next year.

As you said, all talk of him will die down unless we get a mass of injuries so I wouldn't worry about this type of thread being on going but people have every right to take this pick to task in a big way.

 

I stopped reading at the bold. It's not a fact. Hack being a project has been one of the only transparent things this regime has revealed to the fans. Everyone knows and knew he was a project. It wasn't just revealed.

If I cared more to prove you wrong, I'd find the quotes. Don't care though.

[CanadaSteve]

23 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Just want to point out the obvious problem here:  

Judging a GM on "if his picks are still here" loses it's critical value when we realize that it's up to the GM who selected these players to decide to keep/not keep them.  Most GM's keep "their" guys over the last guy's guys or other random guys.

An argument could be made that a GM might keep one of "his guys" despite one of the others being better, to make themselves look better.  This is especially true if the talent gap is smaller, or salary an issue.

Macc is, generally and excepting Hack, doing a good overall job IMO.  But  him keeping the guys he picked over the guys the last guy picked is not why I think that.

And that is fair War; next year, if Shell is still playing as god-awful as he did this pre-season and he makes the team, then I will have a concern.  If he lets some of his guys go who are not going to cut it, then......

[CanadaSteve]

25 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

I've seen no evidence of this big big arm to tell you the truth, right from the combine throws, many of his passes get there but are wobbly, Petty seems to have a better arm.

He had one very solid drive in the preseason, he had a couple of terrible plays in the 2nd game, int and grounding his comp % was a glorious 36 %

If he's as smart as people say then the pro offense should be no problem for him.

I am happy so many people have such high hopes for this guy but he has shown almost nothing over the last 2 college years, pre draft and in camp to suggest he is going to be good.

Petty does have a better arm (I think).  But wobbly passes don't bother me.  Manning threw one of the worst balls of all time...half the time it looked like a wounded duck.  But he turned out okay.  (BTW, this is NOT a Hackenberg/Peyton comparison

 

[Sperm Edwards]

15 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Great. What if he passes on a QB prospect next year because of his investment in Hackenberg?

It's a legitimate concern. It's one thing to dump Milliner and Amaro while they're still on their rookie deals (and each produced absolutely nothing since Rex/Idzik were fired). Let's see him write off his own higher pick for non-production. I think he'll be able to do that at WR (D.Smith) if even 1-2 of these 3 new kids really pan out and aren't just summer stars. It's a harder decision otherwise, without such late/UDFA kids showing such promise right away.

They want to work on Hackenberg's mechanics after this season. Is he just as willing to burn a high pick on a good QB prospect, before he gets to see the results of those endeavors on the field? In the absence of drafting Hackenberg, and Petty not lighting it up as a starter, a QB is a no-brainer pick next year. But for Maccagnan, less than a year after drafting Hackenberg, and with Hackenberg showing less than nothing so far, I don't know that such a decision is still a no-brainer. Probably not.

I'll be duly impressed if he takes a QB earlier than round 3 this coming April. Even more so if he trades up to make such a move happen. Then he can get all the "he doesn't care when you were drafted" accolades like he's getting for cutting Idzik's nonproductive guys. So far other than mid-5th round Jarvis Harrison, I see him keeping his own, even if they suck as bad or worse than guys he's let go of. No big deal for lower-rung players, but that suggests he is influenced into keeping "his" guys like any other GM, and that he may cling to Hackenberg like Tannenbaum clung to Sanchez. Maybe not, but it's a legitimate concern.

[Sperm Edwards]

59 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Of the 13 picks he has had, all 13 are still with the team, and he has found multiple un-drafted players who are on the roster. What more can you want from a GM?  I get you do not like the Hackenburg pick so early, and truth be told, I would have preferred waiting a round or two to get him.  He probably would have been there.  But I won't fault a GM who is taking QB's every year until he finds one.  If Fitz goes down or has a bad year, we will be picking high next year anyway.  Would it be high enough to get a more blue-chip QB prospect? We shall see.

So, criticism to Macc?  Quite possible, but I won't criticize until Hack is flipping burgers instead of playing football. 

We don't yet know if that's what he's going to do. Two years is not a pattern. Particularly, the idea of taking a QB in round 2 (and trying to take one in round 1) after drafting a slow-to-improve project in round 4, means he's going QB every year. The part where you say "We shall see" is far more accurate. Let's see if he jumps on a round 1-2 QB next year in the absence of Petty seeing the field, and Hackenberg completing 1 offseason of his attempted mechanics overhaul (and also not seeing the field either). THEN you'll be able to say he's a "take QBs every year until he finds one" guy.

It's entirely possible next year we see 3 of the same 4 QBs (this year's quartet, minus Geno) with no new arms drafted or picked up.

[PCP63]

57 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

I didn't write the review. 

Oh, I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I was responding to the review, not you.

[CanadaSteve]

16 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

We don't yet know if that's what he's going to do. Two years is not a pattern. Particularly, the idea of taking a QB in round 2 (and trying to take one in round 1) after drafting a slow-to-improve project in round 4, means he's going QB every year. The part where you say "We shall see" is far more accurate. Let's see if he jumps on a round 1-2 QB next year in the absence of Petty seeing the field, and Hackenberg completing 1 offseason of his attempted mechanics overhaul (and also not seeing the field either). THEN you'll be able to say he's a "take QBs every year until he finds one" guy.

It's entirely possible next year we see 3 of the same 4 QBs (this year's quartet, minus Geno) with no new arms drafted or picked up.

All legit Sperm....As I said, I thought Hackenberg at 2 was too early.  Don't mind him as a prospect, but not in round 2.  What will be more interesting if Fitz went down in game 1, and the Jets finished with the worst record in football. What happens if the play for DeShaun Watson is real?  We shall see how this all turns out.

 

[dbatesman]

24 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It's a legitimate concern. It's one thing to dump Milliner and Amaro while they're still on their rookie deals (and each produced absolutely nothing since Rex/Idzik were fired). Let's see him write off his own higher pick for non-production. I think he'll be able to do that at WR (D.Smith) if even 1-2 of these 3 new kids really pan out and aren't just summer stars. It's a harder decision otherwise, without such late/UDFA kids showing such promise right away.

They want to work on Hackenberg's mechanics after this season. Is he just as willing to burn a high pick on a good QB prospect, before he gets to see the results of those endeavors on the field? In the absence of drafting Hackenberg, and Petty not lighting it up as a starter, a QB is a no-brainer pick next year. But for Maccagnan, less than a year after drafting Hackenberg, and with Hackenberg showing less than nothing so far, I don't know that such a decision is still a no-brainer. Probably not.

I'll be duly impressed if he takes a QB earlier than round 3 this coming April. Even more so if he trades up to make such a move happen. Then he can get all the "he doesn't care when you were drafted" accolades like he's getting for cutting Idzik's nonproductive guys. So far other than mid-5th round Jarvis Harrison, I see him keeping his own, even if they suck as bad or worse than guys he's let go of. No big deal for lower-rung players, but that suggests he is influenced into keeping "his" guys like any other GM, and that he may cling to Hackenberg like Tannenbaum clung to Sanchez. Maybe not, but it's a legitimate concern.

Agreed. The Hackenberg pick was indefensible, but repeating the Geno/Bridgewater fiasco would be a hundred times worse.

[Beerfish]

44 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

I stopped reading at the bold. It's not a fact. Hack being a project has been one of the only transparent things this regime has revealed to the fans. Everyone knows and knew he was a project. It wasn't just revealed.

If I cared more to prove you wrong, I'd find the quotes. Don't care though.

No, incorrect, go and find all of these quotes about him being a massive project the day he was drafted.  Once everyone saw how far away he was these comments came out.  The day he was drafted the NY Jets did not declare that he was a massive project that would need multiple years.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Agreed. The Hackenberg pick was indefensible, but repeating the Geno/Bridgewater fiasco would be a hundred times worse.

I think it puts the team in a bad position to draft total project QBs in back to back years (with non-throwaway level picks in both cases). It then forces a reinvestment in a blah QB like Fitz (and further, the retention of sub-blah QB like Geno) because starting the moment they were drafted it was wishful thinking for either of these guys to start by their respective 3rd seasons. And so here we are with 4 QBs, and not 1 of them on any other team's wish list.

[dbatesman]

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think it puts the team in a bad position to draft total project QBs in back to back years (with non-throwaway level picks in both cases). It then forces a reinvestment in a blah QB like Fitz (and further, the retention of sub-blah QB like Geno) because starting the moment they were drafted it was wishful thinking for either of these guys to start by their respective 3rd seasons. And so here we are with 4 QBs, and not 1 of them on any other team's wish list.

Yeah. If you screw up the marginal value part, then taking a QB every year suddenly doesn't look so smart anymore. I mean, the odds of Hackenberg finishing his career sufficiently better than the day-3 randos (Cardale, Hogan, Rudock. Sudfeld) to justify taking him at 51 are basically nonexistent. That's not even factoring in non-QBs we passed on in round 2 who could be contributing right now, like Alexander or Whitehair. 

[Integrity28]

1 minute ago, Beerfish said:

No, incorrect, go and find all of these quotes about him being a massive project the day he was drafted.  Once everyone saw how far away he was these comments came out.  The day he was drafted the NY Jets did not declare that he was a massive project that would need multiple years.

Nno team comes out and says, "hey, we just drafted a QB, but he's going to be a 'massive' project". The notion that you want to hold the Jets, especially this regime that says as little as possible, to that standard is absurd. The "he needs to be fixed, he's a project" story has been stuck to Hackenberg since WAY before he became a Jets draft pick. Did you suddenly think that because we drafted him he wasn't going to be a project anymore? Even though every analyst and coach that has gone on record about him nationally has said he's a project - even Bill O'brien, his old college coach?

You are adding the qualifier of "massive" and "multiple years". The amount of time it'll take to coach him up towards readiness is an unknown variable. He could come into camp next year and be a world beater, he could come in with some incremental growth as we saw from Petty, or he could come in not having changed at all like Geno seems to have done. We don't know until we see it, and neither do the Jets. So, why, on the date of him being drafted would the Jets put out a "multi-year project" benchmark for his development? This is one of the most ludicrous things I've seen mentioned here in a while... and that's saying a lot. 

The quotes are there, from day one of him being a Jets, the coaches talked openly about the process of bringing him along. Frankly, this regime doesn't just hand a job to any rookie. They all have to be brought along, how quickly that happens is dependent upon the player... so, again, it makes no sense for the Jets to "declare that he's a massive project that needs multiple years" on the day he was drafted.

Here are a couple quotes I was willing to go grab from separate articles. Then I realized I'm wasting time, and stopped... if you have misaligned expectations as to Hack being a project, it's not the fault of the Jets. They've been transparent about it. I'd say it's on you for not paying close enough attention, or for having ridiculous expectations to begin with.

 

Quote

“There is a learning curve,” Bowles said. “When we picked Leonard [Williams] last year, we had Mo [Wilkerson], Sheldon [Richardson] and Snacks [Harrison]. We knew he wasn’t going to come in and start right away. It’s no different this year. We picked the best player at the spot and it just happened to be a quarterback.”

 

Quote

 

“You try not to predispose a guy to a certain … put him in a box, so to speak,” he said. “You try to make sure you keep an open mind and give him an opportunity to show what he can do. Every quarterback has their ups and downs. He’s not by himself in that respect. So, you’re looking at the potential. Mike [Maccagnan] and Todd thought that the potential was there. I think he’s got a great deal of potential.”

So when can Hackenberg be ready to play?

“If I had an answer to that, I’d be in high demand,” Gailey joked.

 

 

[cant wait]

15 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Yeah. If you screw up the marginal value part, then taking a QB every year suddenly doesn't look so smart anymore. I mean, the odds of Hackenberg finishing his career sufficiently better than the day-3 randos (Cardale, Hogan, Rudock. Sudfeld) to justify taking him at 51 are basically nonexistent. That's not even factoring in non-QBs we passed on in round 2 who could be contributing right now, like Alexander or Whitehair. 

So you're saying he should have traded up for goff then? The odds of a #1 overall pick being good are so much higher 

[dbatesman]

6 minutes ago, cant wait said:

So you're saying he should have traded up for goff then? The odds of a #1 overall pick being good are so much higher 

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

[Beerfish]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

 

I agree, you go for it at QB or you draft project guys later and hope.  The Jets have been perfect at half measures at Qb with all of our 2nd rounders.  I never liked Sanchez much from day one but I loved the aggressive trade up they made to get their guy

[cant wait]

4 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

 

I agree, you go for it at QB or you draft project guys later and hope.  The Jets have been perfect at half measures at Qb with all of our 2nd rounders.  I never liked Sanchez much from day one but I loved the aggressive trade up they made to get their guy

Okay well maybe the jets will trade their next 3 years worth of picks next year so that you can feel good about getting a top QB. I mean why bother with anything else but #1? 

[dbatesman]

11 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

 

I agree, you go for it at QB or you draft project guys later and hope.  The Jets have been perfect at half measures at Qb with all of our 2nd rounders.  I never liked Sanchez much from day one but I loved the aggressive trade up they made to get their guy

I was being sarcastic (that wasn't what I was saying at all), but I actually do agree with this. Either you get the guy at the top of the draft or you grab some bum on day 3 and hope you can fix whatever's wrong with him. The history on QBs in the 2nd round is abysmal, and to the best of my recollection, none of them needed a f*cking redshirt year.

[HessStation]

3 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

I was being sarcastic (that wasn't what I was saying at all), but I actually do agree with this. Either you get the guy at the top of the draft or you grab some bum on day 3 and hope you can fix whatever's wrong with him. The history on QBs in the 2nd round is abysmal, and to the best of my recollection, none of them needed a redshirt year.

This must be frustrating so let me help, you're making sense. However, I feel the need to be optimistic. So you're wrong. Go Hackenberg '18!!!!

[cant wait]

5 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

I was being sarcastic (that wasn't what I was saying at all), but I actually do agree with this. Either you get the guy at the top of the draft or you grab some bum on day 3 and hope you can fix whatever's wrong with him. The history on QBs in the 2nd round is abysmal, and to the best of my recollection, none of them needed a f*cking redshirt year.

do you think there will be another Jared goff available with the #1 pick next year? The history of drafting a QB that high means it's obviously the best shot this team has

[RutgersJetFan]

14 minutes ago, cant wait said:

do you think there will be another Jared goff available with the #1 pick next year? 

Unless Jared Goff stumbles into the cloning lab that Michael Keaton accidentally discovered in Multiplicity, probably not.

[RutgersJetFan]

Yeah, that's right. A Multiplicity reference. Anyone else on their A-game today?

[Beerfish]

2 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Yeah, that's right. A Multiplicity reference. Anyone else on their A-game today?

[RutgersJetFan]

1 minute ago, Beerfish said:

You can join in if you want. Quick, let's think of how this all relates to the plot of Gung Ho.

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

You can join in if you want. Quick, let's think of how this all relates to the plot of Gung Ho.

Long Duck Dong / At Toon was great in that movie.

[Jet Nut]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The thing I can't get past is that O'Brien either didn't want him or couldn't sell his GM on him (nor a Fitz+Hackenberg duo) instead of Osweiller. 

Because there was no guarantee that they could draft who they wanted?  They just cant snap their fingers and get a specific player.  But they sure were the only ones who would get Osweiler?  Or they're feeling heat to win in Texas, have a pretty good team and needed a QB who could play today, not 2 seasons down the road?