Is it significant that PSU is much better w/o Hack

[dbatesman]

1 minute ago, Jet Nut said:

At this point you have no clue, no one does, whether the pick was a waste or not.  

You think he'll suck.  Others don't.  Somehow with a shred of proof you want to lecture us why you're right. 

Why the F don't you just leave it alone until the kid plays.  So ****ed up

thank you, Jet Nut

[Mogglez]

56 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

They didn't predict that any of them would be likely NFL successes, because most QBs aren't; for what it's worth, they did give him the second-lowest chance of busting out of any of the guys they studied. The point isn't to predict who'll be good or bad; it's to separate guys into piles. Guys who start tons of games and complete tons of passes tend to be average-or-better; guys who don't are shaky enough that they're practically not draftable, and certainly not draftable before day 3. So throw up your hands and call things a crapshoot and absolve Maccagnan of responsibility for flushing a 2 on Hackenberg if you want, but at this point the correlation is so strong and so well-established that you're basically saying there's just no way to know whether the earth is flat or round.

They threw the quotes with their systems prediction out there.  Not me.  The same system that threw guys like Brady Quinn, Colt McCoy, and Jason Campbell in the same group as Luck, Palmer, Peyton, etc.  

It's a system that clearly has its major flaws and that's why they are blogging on the internet and not working for an NFL front office.  There isn't a single "advanced stat" that can predict ANYTHING.  The drafting of QBs, for the most part, is a crapshoot.  So much goes into it.  No advanced stat will change my opinion on that.  

Look I'm going to set the record straight on my opinion of Hack because I'm tired of going back and forth with you over it. I admit I take it too far sometimes. I'm very opinionated.  I said this yesterday, you're a good poster when you are serious about what you're discussing (like right now) and I'd rather have true discussion with you, rather than the back and forth taunting we've been doing.  I've followed the kid since high school.  I've studied everything about him.  Inside and out.  I did the same with Winston, Stafford, and Wentz (not as much admittedly with Wentz).  They are 4 guys I took a particular liking to and believed in from day one.  I've played QB and have an abnormal obsession with the position.  I'm not absolving Mac on anything. If he fails to get a QB here, I will be just as disappointed in him as all the others who have tried and failed.  I think Mac liked Hack a lot...but would have preferred him in the 3rd.  I also think Mac, being more connected than all of us to the NFL and the rumblings, didn't think he would last to the Jets 3rd round pick.  Factor in the belief that QB trumps everything, and the fact that there is little to no risk with a 2nd rounder nowadays, he decided to reach on a guy that he truly believed in.  I don't mind the reach because of my personal (admittedly somewhat biased) liking of the kid and the fact that he was the ultimate wildcard that, if he panned out, was once looked at like the other "Top End" guys and could be special.  I will, however, have zero issues if we draft someone else in the next two years (I don't really like this class though) and abandon the project because it isn't panning out.  Hack needs to prove Mac and I wrong. I get that. I don't argue that.  I just don't get the fans that refuse to support him.  I don't get the fans that would rather be right about the guys that they liked over our pick, than see our gamble pay off.  A simple "I don't agree with the pick but will root for him" is fine.  Screaming for him to be cut in rookie Mini Camps and Mac to be fired because he didn't look like Montana for a few days is wrong, IMHO.  

[The Crusher]

27 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

This didn't show up earlier for some reason, which is too bad, because it's some of your finest work. To be clear, your argument is that this model, which is attempting to quantify the most valuable and difficult-to-scout position in sports, is bad because it only hits 60% of the time.

This seems an opportune moment to point out that every single one of the guys you didn't bold has started at least four playoff games. Aren't numbers fun?

 

 

To be  fair RG III was absolutely beastley his rookie year. Lived in DC got to see him play live couple times. So fast so athletic, fun to watch. Built too much like a hurdler for the NFL. Couldn't hold up. Honestly if he doesn't get beat to crap he could have easily been not bolded as well. 

[Mogglez]

1 hour ago, dbatesman said:

This didn't show up earlier for some reason, which is too bad, because it's some of your finest work. To be clear, your argument is that this model, which is attempting to quantify the most valuable and difficult-to-scout position in sports, is bad because it only hits 60% of the time.

This seems an opportune moment to point out that every single one of the guys you didn't bold has started at least four playoff games. Aren't numbers fun?

 

 

Didn't see this either while at work, so apologies for the slow response.

My argument is that numbers aren't everything and that, for the most part, picking these guys can't do anything more than what basic scouting can't already identify. Many of the guys I didn't bold (Peyton, Rivers, Luck, Palmer, Pennington) were heavily scouted and considered stud 1st rounders.  2 of which were thought of as "can't miss".  I'd hope that a system trying to legitimize itself would have those guys on there.  It's pretty important to note that they missed a crap ton of phenomenal QBs that I would have never put below some of the guys on the top of their list when they came out of school.  McNabb, Eli Manning, and Big Ben to name a few.

The juicy part of scouting QBs, at least for me, is in the 2nd round and below.  The steals. The hidden gems. The diamonds in the rough.  The only one on that list that is a part of that niche is Drew Brees.  I don't think there is a single set of stats that can accurately spot those types of players.  You just need really good scouts and, honestly, some degree of luck that a gut instinct is right. 

I could have made a playoffs argument for Mark Sanchez back in 2009/2010 and no one would have bat an eye.  Numbers can lie and be deceptive.  That's my point.  I don't really believe in them.  Especially "advanced" numbers.  60% isn't 100% and until someone comes up with a "fool-proof" system (they won't), I'm not buying in.  That's my personal belief. 

 

[Mogglez]

36 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

To be  fair RG III was absolutely beastley his rookie year. Lived in DC got to see him play live couple times. So fast so athletic, fun to watch. Built too much like a hurdler for the NFL. Couldn't hold up. Honestly if he doesn't get beat to crap he could have easily been not bolded as well. 

I agree with this and was on the fence about whether or not I should bold him.  I'll even throw everyone some ammo against me and admit that I firmly believed that RGIII was going to be better than Luck.  He should have been handled better and I really believe that he would have been better if he was. My infatuation with him left me wanting us to sign him so badly in the offseason.

[CaliforniaJet]

Hack couldn't beat out Petty, Geno, or Fitz for reps. He must be more than a year away. 

He was probably drafted two rounds early. 

[RutgersJetFan]

1 hour ago, dbatesman said:

...is bad because it only hits 60% of the time.

Which means it hits...every time.

I'm here all week folks. 

[Lizard King]

And this whole time, I thought the Earth was flat. Someone told me it wasn't but then I drove out to Ohio on route 80 and knew that science obviously got that one backwards. its ok. Can't nail them all Dbutt

[dbatesman]

6 hours ago, Mogglez said:

They threw the quotes with their systems prediction out there.  Not me.  The same system that threw guys like Brady Quinn, Colt McCoy, and Jason Campbell in the same group as Luck, Palmer, Peyton, etc.  

It's a system that clearly has its major flaws and that's why they are blogging on the internet and not working for an NFL front office.  There isn't a single "advanced stat" that can predict ANYTHING.  The drafting of QBs, for the most part, is a crapshoot.  So much goes into it.  No advanced stat will change my opinion on that.  

You're working so hard to make this something it's not. There's nothing advanced going on here. Forget the stuff about playcalling and BMI, and definitely forget the parts where they try and interpret this stuff for you. All of that is just Schatz and Co. sniffing their own farts. The nut is this: number of starts and completion percentage. That's it. You use those numbers alone and you'll still be hitting around 60%.

As for NFL front offices, if you don't think they use data like this--even, yes, advanced stats--I don't know what to tell you. For example, here are Parcells' rules for drafting QBs: http://insider.espn.com/nfl/draft2016/insider/story/_/id/15096745/connor-cook-rates-best-nfl-draft-qbs-parcells-rules

Look familiar?

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

ULTIMATE WILDCARD

[maury77]

8 hours ago, dbatesman said:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/nfl-draft/2012/lewin-career-forecast-2012

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/qbase-2016

The Lewin forecast isn't infallible, it had Geno rated pretty high

[Scott Dierking]

As others have mentioned here, the fact that PSU has improved over previous years is not a reflection of Hackenberg's abilities.

PSU has improved because the players that Franklin recruited, the players that he chose to fit his system are now getting playing time and being employed in those systems. Bringing on offensive coordinator Joe Moorhead (former Fordham coach) has been a revelation for the offense. Moorhead will receive college head coaching inquiries after this year.

You cannot compare the offensive style that Hack ran, to what they ran this year. Nor the quality of players. PSU does not huddle, as they did in the past.They run a read-option offense, which is not Hack's style. The offensive line is tremendously better. The special teams and defense are vastly improved, putting the offense in less holes than previous years. Saquon Barkley is a beast and a Heisman candidate.

To just look at the success of this year's team, and last year's team and say the difference is Hackenberg, would be entirely ignorant. 

This does not guarantee pro success for Hack, but the premise of "his fault" is just plain dumb

 

[Xtina]

7 hours ago, The Crusher said:

To be  fair RG III was absolutely beastley his rookie year. Lived in DC got to see him play live couple times. So fast so athletic, fun to watch. Built too much like a hurdler for the NFL. Couldn't hold up. Honestly if he doesn't get beat to crap he could have easily been not bolded as well. 

But he did get beat to crap. And plenty of people expected that to happen. Including myself, who knows absolutely zero about this. 

You can say "if only" about every single prospect  that doesn't pan out. 

[dbatesman]

1 hour ago, maury77 said:

The Lewin forecast isn't infallible, it had Geno rated pretty high

maury, thank's

[Matt39]

1 hour ago, maury77 said:

The Lewin forecast isn't infallible, it had Geno rated pretty high

I think the idea here is the model can never tell you who's going to be good for certain, but it sure as sh*t can tell you who's not going to be good.

[The Crusher]

8 hours ago, Mogglez said:

I agree with this and was on the fence about whether or not I should bold him.  I'll even throw everyone some ammo against me and admit that I firmly believed that RGIII was going to be better than Luck.  He should have been handled better and I really believe that he would have been better if he was. My infatuation with him left me wanting us to sign him so badly in the offseason.

I knew it! Haha.  I saw him at Top Golf couple times in Loundon county in street clothes. Dude is spindly. Way too fragile and had a significant injury history even before getting into the NFL. It's a shame because he was very fun to watch. 

[The Crusher]

1 hour ago, Xtina said:

But he did get beat to crap. And plenty of people expected that to happen. Including myself, who knows absolutely zero about this. 

You can say "if only" about every single prospect  that doesn't pan out. 

That's true. Yet some are obviously awful from the get go. But I do agree regardless of how they arrive there if they don't pan out then they simply don't pan out. 

[bealeb319]

21 hours ago, section314 said:

Everyone on this board, and every Jets fan alive would gladly wait till 2018 if Hack is gonna be that guy. In the meantime, let's see what Petty can do.

I am more than happy to wait for hack to develop before throwing him away but that doesn't mean we should give up our search for our franchise QB while we wait nor do i think we will. I think you keep looking and if someone other than hack ends up stepping up you have to pull the trigger even if hack is progressing.

[Beerfish]

10 hours ago, David Harris said:

Eating our own since 1971

No, its simply an evaluation of what i consider a huge monstrous mistake by the front office.  Also how much have we won since 1971?

[Beerfish]

27 minutes ago, bealeb319 said:

I am more than happy to wait for hack to develop before throwing him away but that doesn't mean we should give up our search for our franchise QB while we wait nor do i think we will. I think you keep looking and if someone other than hack ends up stepping up you have to pull the trigger even if hack is progressing.

The issue is, as we are seeing right now, how do you keep looking for a franchise Qb and actually get a decentt look of existing QBS?  We could potentially be going into next year with a 3rd year Qb in Petty and a 2nd year Qb in hackenburg and have zero clue what either can really do.

[joewilly12]

4 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

The issue is, as we are seeing right now, how do you keep looking for a franchise Qb and actually get a decentt look of existing QBS?  We could potentially be going into next year with a 3rd year Qb in Petty and a 2nd year Qb in hackenburg and have zero clue what either can really do.

Exactly it has to be audition time lets see what Petty and Hack can do.  Move on from Fitzpatrick enough already!   Bowles sticking with him infuriates me.

[section314]

1 hour ago, bealeb319 said:

I am more than happy to wait for hack to develop before throwing him away but that doesn't mean we should give up our search for our franchise QB while we wait nor do i think we will. I think you keep looking and if someone other than hack ends up stepping up you have to pull the trigger even if hack is progressing.

Totally agree.

[bealeb319]

2 hours ago, Beerfish said:

The issue is, as we are seeing right now, how do you keep looking for a franchise Qb and actually get a decentt look of existing QBS?  We could potentially be going into next year with a 3rd year Qb in Petty and a 2nd year Qb in hackenburg and have zero clue what either can really do.

We as fans may have zero clue what either of them can really do i would hope the coaching staff took some good notes on every practice snap and every second of college film that they could find. I would hope they have atleast some clue of what they have and could come up with some estimated guess on what their players could be. 

[Beerfish]

53 minutes ago, bealeb319 said:

We as fans may have zero clue what either of them can really do i would hope the coaching staff took some good notes on every practice snap and every second of college film that they could find. I would hope they have atleast some clue of what they have and could come up with some estimated guess on what their players could be. 

You still can never really tell until a guy gets a shot in real games in the reg season with NFL players around him and NFL defenses and coaches to face.

[bealeb319]

5 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

You still can never really tell until a guy gets a shot in real games in the reg season with NFL players around him and NFL defenses and coaches to face.

The good news is that Petty actually looked mostly comfortable playing in the small bit we got to see him so there is probably a good chance we will see him play again this season.

[Mogglez]

11 hours ago, dbatesman said:

You're working so hard to make this something it's not. There's nothing advanced going on here. Forget the stuff about playcalling and BMI, and definitely forget the parts where they try and interpret this stuff for you. All of that is just Schatz and Co. sniffing their own farts. The nut is this: number of starts and completion percentage. That's it. You use those numbers alone and you'll still be hitting around 60%.

As for NFL front offices, if you don't think they use data like this--even, yes, advanced stats--I don't know what to tell you. For example, here are Parcells' rules for drafting QBs: http://insider.espn.com/nfl/draft2016/insider/story/_/id/15096745/connor-cook-rates-best-nfl-draft-qbs-parcells-rules

Look familiar?

Fair enough...I can agree with those two numbers playing a big part into a prospects possible chances for success.  That said, there is still, in my opinion, exceptions to these benchmarks (including the Parcells rules, which I completely side with).  In my gut, Hack has good shot at being an exception.  Everything is up to him, but I think there's a good shot.  Maybe it's bias, maybe it's blind faith, but I believe in the kid.  He has a brain.  He can go through progressions, pick things up quickly, etc.  I don't think his mechanics are damaged beyond repair.  He possesses some of those "unquantifiable" traits.  I can understand me being in the minority.  I can't understand those that totally root against him (not saying this is you).

And on much smaller note, yes, I may not like them, but I'm aware that advanced stats are making there way into the scouting field.  Maybe I'm just a bigger fan of old school scouting with film study, good eyes for talent, and gut feelings.