Can Hackenberg really be this bad? UGH..

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

Sure, and know what will happen next year?  The theme will be, 'oh he's a rookie as he never played at all last year, how can you except him to be good when this is his 1st year essentially!'

You've got pretty much every complaint down.  

Why don't you just let it go.  For a subject none of us can prove or disprove you're pretty sure of yourself and not willing to back off even a little.  Like you did after the Giants game.

[Beerfish]

52 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

You've got pretty much every complaint down.  

Why don't you just let it go.  For a subject none of us can prove or disprove you're pretty sure of yourself and not willing to back off even a little.  Like you did after the Giants game.

I'm making an analysis of the player now and when drafted, like the actual team has to do, not 5 years from now when we all know the answer.

I think it was a bad reach pick that we could have used to get a better prospect.  I think the fact we drafted the guy so early will force the team to give him a lot of leash. 

If I'm wrong I'll be force fed crow, I have no issue with that at all.  Most people on here refuse to make a stand on a player or the team decision.  The usual mantra is 'wait for 3 years and then if he is bad you can call him bad!  Which makes zero sense.

[Jet Nut]

16 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

I'm making an analysis of the player now and when drafted, like the actual team has to do, not 5 years from now when we all know the answer.

I think it was a bad reach pick that we could have used to get a better prospect.  I think the fact we drafted the guy so early will force the team to give him a lot of leash. 

If I'm wrong I'll be force fed crow, I have no issue with that at all.  Most people on here refuse to make a stand on a player or the team decision.  The usual mantra is 'wait for 3 years and then if he is bad you can call him bad!  Which makes zero sense.

There's a reason why people say wait for three years.  Because that's the usual time frame to accurately rate a draft pick.  

Not before a he's taken a single NFL snap.  

[Beerfish]

9 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

There's a reason why people say wait for three years.  Because that's the usual time frame to accurately rate a draft pick.  

Not before a he's taken a single NFL snap.  

What good does it doe to say:

 

Geno smith sucks!  After 4 or 5 years when we all know he sucks.

What good does it do to say Tom Brady is great! After we all know he is great.

The Jets on the day of the draft had to make a decision on a player, that's when one should initially have an opinion, unless one is afraid to be wrong.

I was not crazy about Lee in the 1st round, I hated the Hackenburg pick, I liked most of the rest of draft including most of our UDFA

Do you have an opinion on Hackenburg?  Do you endorse him right now as being the future of this team? 

[Jetmech]

From all the rumors going back to before the draft, he was afraid of anyone drafting Hackenberg. Except the Texans. The Texans just took Osweiller and had just leapfrogged the Jets to take someone other than Hackenberg. I got the sense no one else wanted to touch him prior to round 4, but MM was obsessed with his theoretical potential of round 1 skills he could get in the bottom half of round 2; that only by the grace of PSU sanctions was this elite specimen available to him so late. 

Wasn't aware of that. Based on Bowles quote they thought he was BPA which happened to be a QB. Thought that was curious statement.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Jet Nut]

28 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

What good does it doe to say:

 

Geno smith sucks!  After 4 or 5 years when we all know he sucks.

What good does it do to say Tom Brady is great! After we all know he is great.

The Jets on the day of the draft had to make a decision on a player, that's when one should initially have an opinion, unless one is afraid to be wrong.

I was not crazy about Lee in the 1st round, I hated the Hackenburg pick, I liked most of the rest of draft including most of our UDFA

Do you have an opinion on Hackenburg?  Do you endorse him right now as being the future of this team? 

Because the draft isn't an exact science? That can't miss QBs wash out and 6th round throw away picks become HOF players?  That's the nature of the beast.  So unless you're saying dump all picks for established players it's just who you like over someone else's favorite.  Time will tell us if we're right or wrong. 

My opinion on Hack is tainted by what I saw in his first year a PSU.  He was in every way a up and coming QB.  18 years old and running the Pats offense, well.  My point of view is he's done it before so we know he can.  Just have to get him back to that place.  Where other QBs who play exclusively in a spread type offense you have more to teach and hope it can happen for them.  Doesn't for many from that type system.

Also going into the draft he had one of those project QBs in Petty, have no idea if he'll ever develop into a starting QB and a 33 year old bridge QB with a bridge to nowhere.  So I have no issue with using a 2nd trying to find our QB of the future.  I'll have no issue if they keep drafting QBs until they're happy.  Its the QB, I'll take one over a position player every time

[Sperm Edwards]

4 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Didn't we pick ahead of Houston? Then they had no chance of picking up Hackenberg, we took him first.  He wasn't even an option.  If they wanted him and let Osweilller go they wouldn't have either QB.

If Denver starts Osweiller in the SB, they still win the SB IMO. 

Nope. In round 2 Houston leapfrogged us so they picked ahead of us with very little effort. They could have taken Hackenberg if they wanted him, in round 2. They didn't because they just picked up Osweiller and maybe because they simply didn't want him even in the 5th round. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Jetmech said:

 

 

Wasn't aware of that. Based on Bowles quote they thought he was BPA which happened to be a QB. Thought that was curious statement.

 

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

They had a town hall style event in the spring, after the draft, where they made that announcement. That it's ok for a 2nd rounder to sit as a rookie, but 1st rounders must play. Kind of a strange philosophy because some positions just don't lend themselves to subbing in & out like LBers. QB & OL you're either a full time starter or you're on the bench. No one subs those players in & out to gradually work them in. So I get that rationale for a lot of positions, but not on the OL and definitely not at QB given its particular importance.

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Nope. In round 2 Houston leapfrogged us so they picked ahead of us with very little effort. They could have taken Hackenberg if they wanted him, in round 2. They didn't because they just picked up Osweiller and maybe because they simply didn't want him even in the 5th round. 

Maybe.

Lots of reasons why they may have gone the way they did though.  Hard to speculate.  We dont even know if O'Brien has the power to draft who he wants 

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Maybe.

Lots of reasons why they may have gone the way they did though.  Hard to speculate.  We dont even know if O'Brien has the power to draft who he wants 

If O'Brien starts jumping on the table like Bradway Jr they're drafting Hackenberg.

[Beerfish]

2 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Because the draft isn't an exact science? That can't miss QBs wash out and 6th round throw away picks become HOF players?  That's the nature of the beast.  So unless you're saying dump all picks for established players it's just who you like over someone else's favorite.  Time will tell us if we're right or wrong. 

My opinion on Hack is tainted by what I saw in his first year a PSU.  He was in every way a up and coming QB.  18 years old and running the Pats offense, well.  My point of view is he's done it before so we know he can.  Just have to get him back to that place.  Where other QBs who play exclusively in a spread type offense you have more to teach and hope it can happen for them.  Doesn't for many from that type system.

Also going into the draft he had one of those project QBs in Petty, have no idea if he'll ever develop into a starting QB and a 33 year old bridge QB with a bridge to nowhere.  So I have no issue with using a 2nd trying to find our QB of the future.  I'll have no issue if they keep drafting QBs until they're happy.  Its the QB, I'll take one over a position player every time

I don't disagree with some of what you say.  The problem is that insulate yourself from the misses by taking close to bpa with your early picks, be as speculative as you want after a few rounds but a 2nd round pick, 51st player in the whole draft should be reasonably expected to be an nfl player sooner than later.  The guy we picked is much further off than a lot of guys we have picked in the past, geno, sanchez, hell eve petty all looked much better from the start,

Hack looked by all accounts very good three years ago, woe be to the evaluator that drafts based on that rather than more recent history.  In any case as you've said he will be a total non entity all of this year. 

We'll get to camp next year and the team will say,,, well now we will fix his mechanics.....I'll be happy as a pig in you know what to be wrong on this one but I really don't think I will be.

[C Mart]

6 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

From all the rumors going back to before the draft, he was afraid of anyone drafting Hackenberg. Except the Texans. The Texans just took Osweiller and had just leapfrogged the Jets to take someone other than Hackenberg. I got the sense no one else wanted to touch him prior to round 4, but MM was obsessed with his theoretical potential of round 1 skills he could get in the bottom half of round 2; that only by the grace of PSU sanctions was this elite specimen available to him so late. 

All due respect. How do you know what all 32 teams are thinking?  Teams don't even know what others are thinking during  the draft. Sorry. But nobody knows. 

[JetBlue]

6 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Sure, and know what will happen next year?  The theme will be, 'oh he's a rookie as he never played at all last year, how can you except him to be good when this is his 1st year essentially!'

Okay Nostradamus.... 

[bostonmajet]

7 hours ago, Pcola said:

Not giving up the next two drafts for the rights to draft Goff or Wentz was the right move.  Taking Lee over Paxton Lynch and therefore settling for Hackenberg could potentially be a career limiting move.  

I don't know how heat Lee needs to be to justify taking over Lynch if Lynch ends up winning playoff games for Denver.

Maybe Macc and staff are ok with Fitz as their long term starter.  Would anyone be shocked if Fitz comes close to duplicating last year and the Jets sign him long term?

Good point on not giving up too much for Goeff and Wentz; As far as Lee over Lynch, these are two separate items, IMO. I believe they wanted to pass on Lynch; they tried to trade up and get an OL, and then they hoped the other OL was waiting for them. I don't know if they tried to trade down or not, but I think they moved on from Lynch, didn't have anyone else they really wanted over Lee.

7 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If coach and GM are to be taken at their word, they passed on Lynch because they felt he wouldn't see the field this year, as opposed to Lee who should definitely see the field a lot.

I don't remember them saying that, and if it is true it makes their decision even more ridiculous. The wanted Fitz to start. They drafted a guy who wasn't going to start as QB in round 2; if you thought Lynch was your guy and you don't have a franchise QB, not drafting him in the first because he couldn't start for you is just plain stupid IMO. Lee wasn't going to make the difference between SB and not SB (especially if they didn't sign Fitz), so passing on a possible franchise QB because he had to sit is silly and short-sighted.

I believe they just were not enamored with Lynch for some reason. If it ever comes out that the Jets thought Lynch could be the guy and skipped him for a LB, that will end Mac's days.

[Beerfish]

23 minutes ago, JetBlue said:

Okay Nostradamus.... 

I'll gladly put my ass on the line on any player evaluation, unlike 90% of the people who will only do so 5 years after they were drafted.  I can pretty easily toss the Nostradmaus comment back on each and every person claiming he is going to be good.

[Sperm Edwards]

32 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

I don't remember them saying that, and if it is true it makes their decision even more ridiculous. The wanted Fitz to start. They drafted a guy who wasn't going to start as QB in round 2; if you thought Lynch was your guy and you don't have a franchise QB, not drafting him in the first because he couldn't start for you is just plain stupid IMO. Lee wasn't going to make the difference between SB and not SB (especially if they didn't sign Fitz), so passing on a possible franchise QB because he had to sit is silly and short-sighted.

I believe they just were not enamored with Lynch for some reason. If it ever comes out that the Jets thought Lynch could be the guy and skipped him for a LB, that will end Mac's days.

I was there in the audience, as were others. They (specifically, Maccagnan) most definitely said it.

 

[bostonmajet]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I was there in the audience, as were others. They (specifically, Maccagnan) most definitely said it.

 

That is terrible then; just crap. Still think they didn't covet him, but a bad reason not to draft him.

[Sperm Edwards]

49 minutes ago, C Mart said:

All due respect. How do you know what all 32 teams are thinking?  Teams don't even know what others are thinking during  the draft. Sorry. But nobody knows. 

Oh I know. They all call me. 

If Hackenberg is awesome, then the round drafted means nothing, including if we took him instead of Lee & Lynch in round 1. If he is not awesome, then the round drafted does matter. Reaching is only forgivable in the case of the former. A GM who gambles and hits appropriately gets kudos. A GM who gambles and misses on a seriously flawed prospect, a couple of rounds earlier than he was expected to get drafted, then he is deserving of all the criticism and doesn't get off because of "Well he was trying." No. He gets blame for taking a QB prospect who was disliked by so many. Particularly after passing up on another one who we thought we'd have to trade into the top 10 to have a shot at.

If someone drafted Russell Wilson in round 2 it would be fine in hindsight because he's awesome. But it also would have been incorrect to say he wouldn't have lasted to the middle of round 3. Ryan Nassib was projected as high as #8 overall. If he was taken in round 2 he would have still been a reach. He fell to round 4. It happens. 

[Sperm Edwards]

6 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

That is terrible then; just crap. Still think they didn't covet him, but a bad reason not to draft him.

It was less than thrilling to hear, yes.

Actually it was Bowles who said it not MM. Good thing I typed it all out at the time because I forgot which one without re-reading it.

[JetBlue]

20 hours ago, Beerfish said:

I'll gladly put my ass on the line on any player evaluation, unlike 90% of the people who will only do so 5 years after they were drafted.  I can pretty easily toss the Nostradmaus comment back on each and every person claiming he is going to be good.

How about we just wait and see? He was never going to play this year so go back and forth on this?