Hackenberg still a non-factor for Jets, who took 'Hack' over Dak ~ ~ ~

[UnitedWhofans]

39 minutes ago, Freemanm said:

Why can't this team ever get it right? Why can't we ever get the combination of a good young QB and a coach that can develop him? 

They have gotten it right. Back in the late 60s. So in essence they already had their spin at the wheel

[bostonmajet]

It always amazes me that people just don't get the concepts that Macc is using. Let me make it clear that I am defending the strategy NOT the execution because I do not know how this will turn out yet. It could be a bad pick (or great pick) but we just don't know yet.

Now, to the strategy: for anyone who has bought real estate or invests in stocks should know - making a smart choice isn't simple.

1. In RE it is location, location, location. A property in one location isn't the same as a property (even identical) in another location. With QBs you cannot compare (directly) a QB playing in one place to another. There is a different team, offense, CS. Dak could play great in Dallas, but may not in NY. This is one of the main reasons I believe we did not go with Lynch. In my mind he was too immature to be successful here - too many distractions, too much scrutiny.

2. Again, location, location, location. If my goal is a great school system (vs winning the SB), I pick the location first. Then I find what I can get. I can mortgage the future and buy a place that I cannot afford today, hoping that it pays off. You only have so much money, you may have to pick a smaller house to afford the car. Same with draft picks, you can bundle 3 firsts, but then you cannot build the rest of the team, or by the time you do, the QB is no longer on his rookie contract.

Or, you can buy a small place that needs to be fixed up and invest in it over the years. You may have to share a bathroom, or your kitchen can be old, or you have to park outside in the snow. But eventually, you can expand and remodel. Here you pick a QB in the 2nd (for example) but have to wait longer to see any results.

Or, you pick a house you can afford and invest in nicer cars, vacations, etc. to compensate. Here you would draft/sign an average QB and invest in building a better team.

3. When investing, you can play it safe or you can take risks. You can buy a blue chip stock and get some growth and income, but you aren't likely to loose your shirt. Or, you can take a bigger chance, but you potential payout is much greater. This would be the difference in getting a reliable QB that is never going to be great (Fitz had he not sucked so much) or rolling the dice on a QB that right now cannot produce, but has a tremendous upside (drafting a guy that has a good chance of failing, but can someday be the franchise).

I believe Mac leveraged all of these concepts. He didn't feel that Lynch would be successful here. Maybe he liked Dak but know with our OL, et. all he wouldn't make it (or he just missed him). He also didn't want to invest the 3 or 4 first round picks that it would have taken to get Marriotta last year or Wentz this year. And, as with the fixer upper (or the he'll be okay and I will build around him) and the cheaper stock with potential he really liked Hack.

Of course, he could have been wrong. Maybe Hack had no chance, or Lynch was a good fit, or whatever. That is an execution question. But drafting a QB you had no chance of playing this year with a conscious decision. Just because Dak is playing well, and just because Hack will not play this year, doesn't make the choice Mac made wrong. Only time will tell if he made the right one. But, it certainly isn't this year, and likely not even next year. Dak and Wentz playing well doesn't make the decision wrong.

[UnitedWhofans]

3 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

It always amazes me that people just don't get the concepts that Macc is using. Let me make it clear that I am defending the strategy NOT the execution because I do not know how this will turn out yet. It could be a bad pick (or great pick) but we just don't know yet.

Now, to the strategy: for anyone who has bought real estate or invests in stocks should know - making a smart choice isn't simple.

1. In RE it is location, location, location. A property in one location isn't the same as a property (even identical) in another location. With QBs you cannot compare (directly) a QB playing in one place to another. There is a different team, offense, CS. Dak could play great in Dallas, but may not in NY. This is one of the main reasons I believe we did not go with Lynch. In my mind he was too immature to be successful here - too many distractions, too much scrutiny.

2. Again, location, location, location. If my goal is a great school system (vs winning the SB), I pick the location first. Then I find what I can get. I can mortgage the future and buy a place that I cannot afford today, hoping that it pays off. You only have so much money, you may have to pick a smaller house to afford the car. Same with draft picks, you can bundle 3 firsts, but then you cannot build the rest of the team, or by the time you do, the QB is no longer on his rookie contract.

Or, you can buy a small place that needs to be fixed up and invest in it over the years. You may have to share a bathroom, or your kitchen can be old, or you have to park outside in the snow. But eventually, you can expand and remodel. Here you pick a QB in the 2nd (for example) but have to wait longer to see any results.

Or, you pick a house you can afford and invest in nicer cars, vacations, etc. to compensate. Here you would draft/sign an average QB and invest in building a better team.

3. When investing, you can play it safe or you can take risks. You can buy a blue chip stock and get some growth and income, but you aren't likely to loose your shirt. Or, you can take a bigger chance, but you potential payout is much greater. This would be the difference in getting a reliable QB that is never going to be great (Fitz had he not sucked so much) or rolling the dice on a QB that right now cannot produce, but has a tremendous upside (drafting a guy that has a good chance of failing, but can someday be the franchise).

I believe Mac leveraged all of these concepts. He didn't feel that Lynch would be successful here. Maybe he liked Dak but know with our OL, et. all he wouldn't make it (or he just missed him). He also didn't want to invest the 3 or 4 first round picks that it would have taken to get Marriotta last year or Wentz this year. And, as with the fixer upper (or the he'll be okay and I will build around him) and the cheaper stock with potential he really liked Hack.

Of course, he could have been wrong. Maybe Hack had no chance, or Lynch was a good fit, or whatever. That is an execution question. But drafting a QB you had no chance of playing this year with a conscious decision. Just because Dak is playing well, and just because Hack will not play this year, doesn't make the choice Mac made wrong. Only time will tell if he made the right one. But, it certainly isn't this year, and likely not even next year. Dak and Wentz playing well doesn't make the decision wrong.

Correct.

Same principle Green Bay used with Aaron Rodgers. Whether Brett Favre was there is irrelevant. Same strategy. But when Green Bay does it, its good. When the Jets do it, it sucks.

That sounds more like a reputation thing. And in the NFL, SOJ or bad history should mean nothing. Because it's essentially a roll of the dice

[Beerfish]

20 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Correct.

Same principle Green Bay used with Aaron Rodgers. Whether Brett Favre was there is irrelevant. Same strategy. But when Green Bay does it, its good. When the Jets do it, it sucks.

That sounds more like a reputation thing. And in the NFL, SOJ or bad history should mean nothing. Because it's essentially a roll of the dice

No it is 100% not irrelevant that they had favre.

And if it is 'a roll of the dice' can we make a roll of the dice pick in the 5,6,7th rounds rather tin the 2nd where you expect to add a solid starter for your team?

[jamesr]

57 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Correct.

Same principle Green Bay used with Aaron Rodgers. Whether Brett Favre was there is irrelevant. Same strategy. But when Green Bay does it, its good. When the Jets do it, it sucks.

That sounds more like a reputation thing. And in the NFL, SOJ or bad history should mean nothing. Because it's essentially a roll of the dice

It was only good for Green Bay because it worked out. Brilliantly.

If Hack goes on to win us a Superbowl, Macc will be a genius. But if he flames out, he'll be a jackass.

[BurnleyJet]

I was far more upset we picked Calvin Pryor over Carr and Bridgewater, because we had Geno fooking Smith.

[Beerfish]

31 minutes ago, jamesr said:

It was only good for Green Bay because it worked out. Brilliantly.

If Hack goes on to win us a Superbowl, Macc will be a genius. But if he flames out, he'll be a jackass.

And for every Rogers there is another guy that Mac probably had a hand in picking, Tom Savage another guy who was 'screwed up by colleges his last few years' almost the same height and weight as hack and with a big arm.

[bostonmajet]

51 minutes ago, jamesr said:

It was only good for Green Bay because it worked out. Brilliantly.

If Hack goes on to win us a Superbowl, Macc will be a genius. But if he flames out, he'll be a jackass.

Sorry, but this is the opposite of my point. If drafting a QB in the 2nd has a 20% of success (just making up the numbers) and you draft a guy in the 2nd. If he makes it great; if not, it doesn't make you a jackass or wrong as there was a small chance of success anyway. If you want a franchise QB and you can't afford one (either are not picking 1 when there is one or you aren't willing to trade 3 firsts to get one) your only choice is to take a chance on a bigger risk. It doesn't make you a jackass.

Mac is trying to build a team that was bereft of talent in a slow but steady fashion. Clearly, he felt the risk/reward for Lynch in the first was too high and that Hack had a good enough risk/reward in the 2nd. Was he right? Who knows (we may never). Lynch succeeding doesn't make him wrong on Lynch for the Jets in the first. Hack failing in the 2nd doesn't make him wrong for the risk or a jackass.

In 2 to 3 years (whether he is here or not) we will have a better idea on how good he was.

[mkajet01]

Let me get this straight. Petty has awesome stats in college he's 4th round draft pick, hack sucks in college is a 2nd Rd pick. Don't get it

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[TuscanyTile2]

If only we still had Shaq Evans then Hack-A-Shaq would still be a possibility this season.

[BRONX DUDE]

7 hours ago, Gas2No99 said:

 

 

Jets' Mike Maccagnan named NFL Executive of the Year by PFWA

I heard Mike Mac is considering returning it to Goodell.

 

7 hours ago, Gas2No99 said:

 

[UnitedWhofans]

17 hours ago, Beerfish said:

No it is 100% not irrelevant that they had favre.

And if it is 'a roll of the dice' can we make a roll of the dice pick in the 5,6,7th rounds rather tin the 2nd where you expect to add a solid starter for your team?

That's the one problem I had with it. Where it was done. 

It is irrelevant. Because maturation time of a QB should not be pressured. No matter who the starter is.

[Beerfish]

16 hours ago, bostonmajet said:

Sorry, but this is the opposite of my point. If drafting a QB in the 2nd has a 20% of success (just making up the numbers) and you draft a guy in the 2nd. If he makes it great; if not, it doesn't make you a jackass or wrong as there was a small chance of success anyway. If you want a franchise QB and you can't afford one (either are not picking 1 when there is one or you aren't willing to trade 3 firsts to get one) your only choice is to take a chance on a bigger risk. It doesn't make you a jackass.

Mac is trying to build a team that was bereft of talent in a slow but steady fashion. Clearly, he felt the risk/reward for Lynch in the first was too high and that Hack had a good enough risk/reward in the 2nd. Was he right? Who knows (we may never). Lynch succeeding doesn't make him wrong on Lynch for the Jets in the first. Hack failing in the 2nd doesn't make him wrong for the risk or a jackass.

In 2 to 3 years (whether he is here or not) we will have a better idea on how good he was.

I don;t understand the bolded part at all.

We're looking for a QB, the gm had the chance to draft Lynch, he did not.  He passed.  He then drafted Hackenburg in the 2nd round.  If Hack flops and lynch succeeds then yeah 100% for sure he deserves to get kicked in the balls. the object of the game for a good gm is to make the right choices, especially at QB.  Further more if Hack is what he appears, a long shot, long long term development guy and he fails Mac deserves grief as well. 

[UnitedWhofans]

1 minute ago, Beerfish said:

I don;t understand the bolded part at all.

We're looking for a QB, the gm had the chance to draft Lynch, he did not.  He passed.  He then drafted Hackenburg in the 2nd round.  If Hack flops and lynch succeeds then yeah 100% for sure he deserves to get kicked in the balls. the object of the game for a good gm is to make the right choices, especially at QB.  Further more if Hack is what he appears, a long shot, long long term development guy and he fails Mac deserves grief as well. 

Then every GM would be fired every year. 

BTW, he did not have the chance to draft Lynch. Lynch was gone when Hackenberg was taken.

I sense a "We hate Darron Lee" thread coming, even though he has played well.

[UnitedWhofans]

BTW, the Cowboys remind me of the 2009 Jets. Rookie QB. Great OL and running game, solid defense.

So Dak Prescott is their Mark Sanchez

[AFJF]

16 hours ago, BurnleyJet said:

I was far more upset we picked Calvin Pryor over Carr and Bridgewater, because we had Geno fooking Smith.

How insane was that?  This is why I think/hope Mac won't make the same mistake.  If they're in a spot to take a potential franchise QB, don't pass on one because you're developing Hack and just took him in the 2nd round.  God forbid they take a chance and possibly end up with multiple good young QB's on the roster.  Raiders got Carr and we got Geno Smith.  It's enough to make you puke.

[Beerfish]

36 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Then every GM would be fired every year. 

BTW, he did not have the chance to draft Lynch. Lynch was gone when Hackenberg was taken.

I sense a "We hate Darron Lee" thread coming, even though he has played well.

Eh?  He had a chance to draft lynch in round 1, I said nothing otherwise.

Since Qb is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than nay other position when you don't have one he made the conscious decision to pass on that player.  He then made a conscious decision to use a 2nd round pick on a huge developmental QB.  His choice, his strategy so yeah, if it turns out all glory to him, if it doesn't he has to wear it,

[Beerfish]

31 minutes ago, AFJF said:

How insane was that?  This is why I think/hope Mac won't make the same mistake.  If they're in a spot to take a potential franchise QB, don't pass on one because you're developing Hack and just took him in the 2nd round.  God forbid they take a chance and possibly end up with multiple good young QB's on the roster.  Raiders got Carr and we got Geno Smith.  It's enough to make you puke.

I don't recall a large hue and cry on these forums when that occurred though.  I could full understand not taking bridgewater as he looked utterly terrible at his pro day.  Carr was rising all through the process though.

[AFJF]

1 minute ago, Beerfish said:

I don't recall a large hue and cry on these forums when that occurred though.  I could full understand not taking bridgewater as he looked utterly terrible at his pro day.  Carr was rising all through the process though.

I don't think I lost my mind over it in all honesty because I just knew it was something they wouldn't do.  These guys often have too much ego to second guess themselves so quickly.  I liked Carr a lot but knew Idzik wouldn't have the guts to take him.  Wanted Cooks but ended up with Pryor.

[Beerfish]

35 minutes ago, AFJF said:

I don't think I lost my mind over it in all honesty because I just knew it was something they wouldn't do.  These guys often have too much ego to second guess themselves so quickly.  I liked Carr a lot but knew Idzik wouldn't have the guts to take him.  Wanted Cooks but ended up with Pryor.

Yup, Cooks was a popular choice.

[bostonmajet]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

I don;t understand the bolded part at all.

We're looking for a QB, the gm had the chance to draft Lynch, he did not.  He passed.  He then drafted Hackenburg in the 2nd round.  If Hack flops and lynch succeeds then yeah 100% for sure he deserves to get kicked in the balls. the object of the game for a good gm is to make the right choices, especially at QB.  Further more if Hack is what he appears, a long shot, long long term development guy and he fails Mac deserves grief as well. 

Lynch succeeding doesn't mean that Mac was wrong as a) just because he succeeded in a small market organization with a certain CS and offensive style/talent - doesn't mean that he would have succeeded in the NY market (more distractions - more scrutiny) with our CS and offense/talent. Again it is risk reward.

Drafting a QB in the last half of second round isn't a big cost/risk. Maybe he has a 30% chance of being a franchise QB for us. It is worth it for a 2nd. But that means that there is a 70% chance he won't make it. If you roll the dice you often don't win. It is calculated.

Now if he had traded 3 firsts to go get Wentz and he failed here it is a career breaker. Bigger cost/risk.

It is like investing. I can invest 50,000 into a stable fund where I have an 80% chance of an annual 5% growth. I can also invest 30,000 into an aggressive fund that has a %30 chance of quadrupling in 5 years, but a 40% chance of loosing 10% in 5 years.

1. I cannot compare funds six months into year one and say, the stable fund is up 8% and the aggressive fund is down %7 and get mad that the aggressive fund was a waste.

2. After 5 years if the aggressive fund lost the 10% I thought it might, it doesn't make my investment stupid. I knew the risks when I invested it. 

3. If I want a shot at 120,000 in 5 years and I have to accept the risk.

If you can't see that Hack in the 2nd is a different kind of investment that Lynch in the 1st; or you say if Hack fails we should dump Mac, you should never invest in angel capital or first round start ups. Most venture capital expect to loose on most of their investments. It is the 10x company that makes them all of the money. But you have to buy a few to hedge your bets.

[Beerfish]

You have instantly absolved any Gm of every being critiqued for his performance. 

Here is a better financial example, you have a chance at a highly thought of stock and you pass, instead you use a slightly less capital on some unknown mining company that is drilling in Indonesia and are paying a lot for that stock. 

[bostonmajet]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

You have instantly absolved any Gm of every being critiqued for his performance. 

Here is a better financial example, you have a chance at a highly thought of stock and you pass, instead you use a slightly less capital on some unknown mining company that is drilling in Indonesia and are paying a lot for that stock. 

LOL - It is not my intention to absolve Mac. My point is that you cannot necessarily judge/condemn a GM on any single pick or a few picks (unless he bets the farm). The same is true for any FA acquisition. There is always a risk/reward. There are always opportunity costs. No GM hits on all of them.

Now after 3 years, if we don't have a good talented team and he cannot find us a QB with potential, then it is time to put up the banners. I honestly think it takes at least 3 or 4 years to know how good a draft class is - let alone a GM. Often, if the GM is bad enough, he doesn't survive long enough to truly be judged.

Not giving him a pass at all - if we still suck next year I will be willing to call him a bust; but when he drafted a QB with the expectation that he would be red-shirted, discussing how well another QB is doing isn't valid. Just my opinion.

[UnitedWhofans]

3 hours ago, AFJF said:

How insane was that?  This is why I think/hope Mac won't make the same mistake.  If they're in a spot to take a potential franchise QB, don't pass on one because you're developing Hack and just took him in the 2nd round.  God forbid they take a chance and possibly end up with multiple good young QB's on the roster.  Raiders got Carr and we got Geno Smith.  It's enough to make you puke.

Cooks wouldn't have been good here either, probably.

[UnitedWhofans]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

You have instantly absolved any Gm of every being critiqued for his performance. 

Here is a better financial example, you have a chance at a highly thought of stock and you pass, instead you use a slightly less capital on some unknown mining company that is drilling in Indonesia and are paying a lot for that stock. 

I only have a problem with the price, not the stock. I have said that on multiple occasions.

That being said, whether Lynch is any good, to me, should be irrelevant. Because he wasnt on the board when Macc drafted Hackenberg. If he was on the board and Hack was taken, then you have a legitimate complaint. 

As for Prescott, nobody knew which is why he was drafted in the 4th round

[UnitedWhofans]

2 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Eh?  He had a chance to draft lynch in round 1, I said nothing otherwise.

Since Qb is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than nay other position when you don't have one he made the conscious decision to pass on that player.  He then made a conscious decision to use a 2nd round pick on a huge developmental QB.  His choice, his strategy so yeah, if it turns out all glory to him, if it doesn't he has to wear it,

Except the Jets did have one. One that threw 32 TDs the year before. But with a history of inconsistency. And even though he wasn't signed, everybody knew he was coming back. At least it seemed that way from the media. 

[detectivekimble]

On November 15, 2016 at 10:12 AM, NoBowles said:

Prescott was handed a throwback Oline, and a fantastic running back. If anyone thinks he would be doing this on the Jets under Gailey they are delusional. 

He's also two years holder than Hack.  Makes a big difference when it comes to QB development.

[SpartanJet]

22 hours ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Correct.

Same principle Green Bay used with Aaron Rodgers. Whether Brett Favre was there is irrelevant. Same strategy. But when Green Bay does it, its good. When the Jets do it, it sucks.

That sounds more like a reputation thing. And in the NFL, SOJ or bad history should mean nothing. Because it's essentially a roll of the dice

You aren't comparing hacknsack in college to Aaron Rodgers are you?  Because one of them was very good, and one of them was a horrific train wreck who can't hit the side of a barn with his accuracy.  I mean I'd be fine with the Jets taking a chance in the 5+ round with someone with his college resume but a 2nd round pick is a crime especially when there were QB's on the board who were proven winners and broke all kinds of records at their respective colleges.  Hacknsack was a Jetsy type of move for sure.

[56mehl56]

1 hour ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Cooks wouldn't have been good here either, probably.

Probably ?? You've seen Fitz throw the ball , that's not a probably but a definitely and the Jets fans would be labeling him a bust.

[UnitedWhofans]

1 hour ago, SpartanJet said:

You aren't comparing hacknsack in college to Aaron Rodgers are you?  Because one of them was very good, and one of them was a horrific train wreck who can't hit the side of a barn with his accuracy.  I mean I'd be fine with the Jets taking a chance in the 5+ round with someone with his college resume but a 2nd round pick is a crime especially when there were QB's on the board who were proven winners and broke all kinds of records at their respective colleges.  Hacknsack was a Jetsy type of move for sure.

I've said repeatedly that the pick was too high. But I can forgive that.

[joewilly12]

9 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

I've said repeatedly that the pick was too high. But I can forgive that.

I cant draft picks in the 1-3 rounds are supposed to be paying dividends and winning us games we have way too  many busts...

[56mehl56]

3 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

I cant draft picks in the 1-3 rounds are supposed to be paying dividends and winning us games we have way too  many busts...

Do the research , look around the league even at the dominate Patriots and you'll see many busted draft picks in the top 3 rounds. The notion that the Jets are the only team bad at drafting is purely a SOJF fantasy.

[joewilly12]

2 minutes ago, 56mehl56 said:

Do the research , look around the league even at the dominate Patriots and you'll see many busted draft picks in the top 3 rounds. The notion that the Jets are the only team bad at drafting is purely a SOJF fantasy.

Im sure we lead the NFL in 1st round draft pick busts. 

[56mehl56]

4 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Im sure we lead the NFL in 1st round draft pick busts. 

Again do the research , back up your points instead of just guessing because woe is us we are Jets fans.

[joewilly12]

5 minutes ago, 56mehl56 said:

Again do the research , back up your points instead of just guessing because woe is us we are Jets fans.

You do it to prove me wrong.