Back To The Future: What If Hackenberg Is Actually Good?

[Freemanm]

A question of the rhetorical variety for everyone except Todd Bowles: How the **** will we ever know if he's any good if he never plays?

[Warfish]

3 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

This fanbase is not prepared for the team being good. It is only comfortable when longing for the next hope.

The article seems to define "good" as some rather mediocre QB numbers and a 7-9 record.

I would say that's not good at all. It's the same flavor of mediocre we get most years.

Have no doubt, I FULLY expect our usual level of mediocre and false hope this year. If what the author wrote comes true I'll be the least surprised man on JN. But unlike many I won't take it as some sign of Hacks imminent greatness, lol.

Winning just enough, with just enough mediocre QB play, and missing on any/all the supposed top QB prospects is exactly what I expect from this franchise in 2017. 

[BCJet]

There is simply no way Hack becomes a 63% passer in 2017, thats not who he is as a QB nor will he likely ever be.  Im not saying that the article is completely off base, he could improve enough to get this team to 7 wins, have more TDs than INTs and have a good YPC, but comp % isnt gonna happen.

Eli Manning didnt hit the 60% mark until his 5th season, yet the team won 11 games in his second year (53% comp 24 td 17 picks).  

Hack is not going to be a high % passer like a brady - he will be more of a guy who uses his arm to make plays downfield that make up for the 3-4 passes he missed per game that another more accurate QB, who doesnt have his downfield passing ability, would hit.

[Integrity28]

55 minutes ago, Warfish said:

The article seems to define "good" as some rather mediocre QB numbers and a 7-9 record.

I would say that's not good at all. It's the same flavor of mediocre we get most years.

Have no doubt, I FULLY expect our usual level of mediocre and false hope this year. If what the author wrote comes true I'll be the least surprised man on JN. But unlike many I won't take it as some sign of Hacks imminent greatness, lol.

Winning just enough, with just enough mediocre QB play, and missing on any/all the supposed top QB prospects is exactly what I expect from this franchise in 2017. 

Um, okay.

[Thor99]

13 hours ago, PCP63 said:

Nah, let's criticize a guy that hasn't played yet. What a bust!

I'd rather watch Jaws.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

This is kind of a minor point but the one year/one round discount rate really only applies to in-draft trades of current picks for next year's picks. It's only a rule of thumb in the first place like the chart but I would imagine if you look at trades involving picks further into the future than that, there aren't many and the values will be kind of tough to nail down.

It's the only measurable that is used, and no one is going to credibly argue the ~100th pick this year carries the same value as the ~100th pick two years later. 

I don't think it's a terrible system, particularly since trades often need to occur in a matter of minutes and it's an easy reference point. There will always be flaws in such a value system, in no small part because one can't fully predict what that the trade partner's pick number will be next year. Oddly enough, the better-predictive future pick number would be the compensatory ones, since they'll generally be around the same overall slot number. Then of course one gets into the relative strength between 2 draft classes, not to mention the strength of that future draft in that particular round, as that has a further effect.

There is no perfect system. Regardless, since this is the method typically used as a baseline, there is a tangible value of these picks in the form of trade value. A 3rd round compensatory pick in 2 years (again, if we even get that) is not considered nearly as valuable as a 3rd compensatory pick today.

Might one get a far better player (in the same draft slot) 2 years later? Of course. One might also get a better player in round 5 than in round 2, but that doesn't make the 5th round pick itself nearly as valuable.

[jeremy2020]

People still holding onto hack's freshman year in college that he can be an NFL QB. That one year is definitely the true hack and not the aberration like the subsequent years have been. 

Geno only needs to be on 34 other teams before you can judge him fairly. Fitzpatrick just had a down year last year. Elway thought Sanchez was good enough to be a Bronco for a minute and with a defense like that, he could win some games. Petty just needs 4 HOF receivers, 5 HOF lineman, a HOF RB and a HOF TE to look good.

[56mehl56]

38 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

People still holding onto hack's freshman year in college that he can be an NFL QB. That one year is definitely the true hack and not the aberration like the subsequent years have been. 

Geno only needs to be on 34 other teams before you can judge him fairly. Fitzpatrick just had a down year last year. Elway thought Sanchez was good enough to be a Bronco for a minute and with a defense like that, he could win some games. Petty just needs 4 HOF receivers, 5 HOF lineman, a HOF RB and a HOF TE to look good.

Likewise people are holding onto 1 preseason game and 1 TC where he basically got third string reps if at all, as proof he can't be a decent NFL QB.

Bottom line he probably has just as much chance to succeed as he does to bust, but the Jet fan pitchfork militia has decreed him to already be an un-redeemable bust.

[win4ever]

7 hours ago, rangerous said:

good points.  when you get to this level of football it's not so much about physical talent.  all of the nfl players are physically talented.  it's what's going on between the ears and if hack keeps his head on straight and understands the game then he will do well.  there are teams that trot out the big name gunslinger type qb's and they don't always succeed.  in fact few make it to the superbowl.  the guys that execute the plays make it to the show.  let's see hack become the second coming of griese albeit without warfield, or csonka, or morris, or kiick, et al. 

Thanks.  I think he has the mental capacity for the game, and the physical strengths as well.  It's really mechanical from what I could tell, and it throws off his accuracy big time.  A lot of teams make hoopla about mechanics during the draft, with release time, ball placement, and windup time, but in most cases it doesn't matter much as long as the time from decision to action isn't abnormally long.  However, Hackenberg has legit issues with his mechanics, hips open too much negating power from the legs and it's an all arm throw.   He also had a bad tendency to spin away as soon he released the ball to avoid hits, but that also affects accuracy a great deal.  

I think early in training camp, it'd be pretty easy to tell if he made the changes to anyone that actually sees him in practice.  If he made the changes, he's going to be far more accurate than his numbers in college indicate.  

[Lupz27]

4 hours ago, Warfish said:

The article seems to define "good" as some rather mediocre QB numbers and a 7-9 record.

I would say that's not good at all. It's the same flavor of mediocre we get most years.

Have no doubt, I FULLY expect our usual level of mediocre and false hope this year. If what the author wrote comes true I'll be the least surprised man on JN. But unlike many I won't take it as some sign of Hacks imminent greatness, lol.

Winning just enough, with just enough mediocre QB play, and missing on any/all the supposed top QB prospects is exactly what I expect from this franchise in 2017. 

Funny that's how Aaron Rodgers first season went.

[jeremy2020]

2 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

Likewise people are holding onto 1 preseason game and 1 TC where he basically got third string reps if at all, as proof he can't be a decent NFL QB.

Bottom line he probably has just as much chance to succeed as he does to bust, but the Jet fan pitchfork militia has decreed him to already be an un-redeemable bust.

Yes, those two years he sucked after freshman year don't mean anything either

[#27TheDominator]

25 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

Funny that's how Aaron Rodgers first season went.

4,000 yards with 28 and 13?  Fitzpatrick had worse numbers than that in 2015 and people were blowing him for having "the greatest season for a Jets QB ever."

[#27TheDominator]

2 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

Likewise people are holding onto 1 preseason game and 1 TC where he basically got third string reps if at all, as proof he can't be a decent NFL QB.

Bottom line he probably has just as much chance to succeed as he does to bust, but the Jet fan pitchfork militia has decreed him to already be an un-redeemable bust.

Oh, were this even remotely true...

[flgreen]

6 hours ago, section314 said:

I think it was made crystal clear to Bowles that this year is all about the young QB's playing, especially Hackenberg. If he wasn't on board with that, he would have been gone.

If that's the agreement, it also would have been made crystal clear that he gets a Mulligan for 2017, as i think Macc did.

[flgreen]

6 hours ago, UntouchableCrew said:

Obviously Hackenberg being good is the best thing that could possibly happen to the Jets at this juncture. There isn't a single other thing that would mean more than him simply panning out and becoming a good NFL QB and every Jets fan should obviously hope and pray that this happens.

Of course, it seems unlikely this will happen at this juncture, but obviously we should all be rooting for him.

Either Petty, or Hack fits the bill

[flgreen]

5 hours ago, bitonti said:

Petty is better and probably always will be. If Hack gets to 64% Completion percentage this year I'll eat my hat. 

That might be a tough one to swallow

 

 

 

[CotcheryifyouCan]

i actually hope petty steps up and is actually good. loved hiim and college and the kid has moxy and is funny. if hack is actaully good then we party and sit back and enjoy while tomshane and dbatesman collectlivley shi t their pants.  neither of the above sentences will  prolly happen tho. a man can dream

[BurnleyJet]

I'm expecting a dumpster fire. Any else is just gravy. 

[56mehl56]

58 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

Yes, those two years he sucked after freshman year don't mean anything either

Answer this , would those 2 years have meant anything if they were average to good. They only mean something because it fits the woe is me Jet fan mentality. 

[56mehl56]

57 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Oh, were this even remotely true...

What makes it false . 

[section314]

1 hour ago, flgreen said:

If that's the agreement, it also would have been made crystal clear that he gets a Mulligan for 2017, as i think Macc did.

I agree. Maybe for more than that.

[Warfish]

2 hours ago, Lupz27 said:

Funny that's how Aaron Rodgers first season went.

Whelp, if Hack becomes an Aaron Rodgers clone, by all means, point out you were right on the internet and should be awarded +1 Internet Points.

Till then, I'll refrain from such.....optimistic.....prognostications, till we see something on a football field that warrants them.

[Jetmech]

If Hack is really good. many out here will have to find a new hobby out here to do other than complaining...
I wanted hack drafted so I am in the clear minority at here... 

I did as well but not the second round...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[thadude]

What if I win a million bucks?

[joewilly12]

 

[Lil Woody]

Just now, joewilly12 said:

 

I'd have gone with Grandmaster Flash's White Lines.

[Charlie Brown]

1 hour ago, Jetmech said:

 

I did as well but not the second round...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 

 

I was of the same mindset as well.  

But what I now realize if you are Mac and you think that Hack is a franchise QB then you get him in round two like Mac did.  However if you gamble and Hack is a bum like some theorize out here, Mac is in some trouble no two ways around it.  

You cant be in favor of Hack as I am and then say it doesn't matter that he was a second round pick if he fails.  Guys get fired when they get stuff like this wrong because it can set a franchise back 5 to 7 years.  

I'm just hoping that Mac is right.  

[ZachEY]

23 hours ago, T0mShane said:

I'm gonna need to see this in an every-day vlog format.

How did you remember this?

[ZachEY]

3 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

Answer this , would those 2 years have meant anything if they were average to good. They only mean something because it fits the woe is me Jet fan mentality. 

Does this go far all QBs who were bad in college, or just the ones that the Jets draft?

[Lil Woody]

45 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

You cant be in favor of Hack as I am and then say it doesn't matter that he was a second round pick if he fails.  Guys get fired when they get stuff like this wrong because it can set a franchise back 5 to 7 years. 

I think you're overvaluing the 2nd round pick. Busting on a 1st rounder has been said to set a team back 3-5 years. Don't get me wrong, missing on picks absolutely matter. It can't be a constant or yeah you will set the team back, but any team can survive an occasional bust, even in the 1st round, IF they are drafting well overall.  If you like a QB enough and you don't think he will make it back to you in the next round, you take him.  I'll also give any GM trying to find a QB a lot more leeway on that particular pick than I would if the selection was say a guard. Now if the GM stands pat on that pick and doesn't keep putting other players in the mix to compete for the job, then fine, the anger is warranted, because then you are banking on him.  Sort of like we did with Geno.  We used a 2nd rounder on him and stood pat on the pick while Bridgewater, Carr, Garappolo, McCarron, Savage, Murray and Mettenberger kept passing us by.  (There was some optimism on many of those guys fwiw and I try not to use the benefit of 20/20 hindsight)

To me the bigger question is how well has the team been drafting overall. Are we getting starters in the draft or are we totally sh*tting the bed like Idzik did?  If you are getting starters, taking fliers on QBs is fine, I'd argue that it is a necessary part of drafting well when you don't have a QB and you don't have a high enough pick to land a FQB.  The bigger issue becomes when you burn a high 1st rounder on a franchise QB and then waste 4 years grooming him on the field and come up with nothing to show for it at the end.  Taking a 2nd-4th rd QB to keep filling the prospect pipeline only becomes a problem when you fail consistently over time netting the same effect. If you end up getting a viable starter along the way, all is forgiven. Plus then you have more draft capital. As they say....QB is EVERYTHING. Keep trying till you get it right.  Then keep trying some more.

[jeremy2020]

4 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

Answer this , would those 2 years have meant anything if they were average to good. They only mean something because it fits the woe is me Jet fan mentality. 

so how do you square that one good year means more than two bad years? 

[Jetmech]

I was of the same mindset as well.  
But what I now realize if you are Mac and you think that Hack is a franchise QB then you get him in round two like Mac did.  However if you gamble and Hack is a bum like some theorize out here, Mac is in some trouble no two ways around it.  
You cant be in favor of Hack as I am and then say it doesn't matter that he was a second round pick if he fails.  Guys get fired when they get stuff like this wrong because it can set a franchise back 5 to 7 years.  
I'm just hoping that Mac is right.  

I agree with the theory but it seemed like he was practically undraftable.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[NYs Stepchild]

13 hours ago, CotcheryifyouCan said:

i actually hope petty steps up and is actually good. loved hiim and college and the kid has moxy and is funny. if hack is actaully good then we party and sit back and enjoy while tomshane and dbatesman collectlivley shi t their pants.  neither of the above sentences will  prolly happen tho. a man can dream

Yes. It would be really nice to have a good QB, but it would be even better to have a good QB that's a great personality. You know, maybe someone that could pull off doing a pantyhose commercial. Petty could do that. He's got great charisma and an easy confidence about him. If he can only fix his accuracy...and stay healthy. 

That said I'd be ecstatic to have  any good QB. 

[#27TheDominator]

14 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

What makes it false . 

Decades of NFL history.

[Big Blocker]

21 hours ago, SwanseaJack said:

If Hackenberg is good, one thing is for certain... everyone on this forum would have known it all along, have always said he was a steal in the second round and said from the start he should be given a chance.

Meh.  As someone who has more or less concluded it is unlikely that he will become a solid NFL Qb, if in fact he turns out to be, what I will say is why has the team been giving us all the signals it has that he is no good?  It is those signals, not some make pretend kind of personal and special insight I claim to have (since I do not), that are the basis for my view of Hack, as I think I can say for essentially all who are skeptical about him.

So, if in fact he turns out to be good, I will be left scratching my head about how he has been handled so far.