What Would it Take for Hack to be the Starter in 2018?

[thadude]

9 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

You calling someone the worst for knowing more than you ever will is perfection.

 

Yeah Kim Jones is great you're right

[Skeptable]

34 minutes ago, thadude said:

Yeah Kim Jones is great you're right

You believing Conner Hughs versus multiple reports from coaches, Cimini, Bleacher report, and Kim Jones stating otherwise is super smart... Continue on with your agenda... Glad you are here...

[thadude]

7 minutes ago, Skeptable said:

You believing Conner Hughs versus multiple reports from coaches, Cimini, Bleacher report, and Kim Jones stating otherwise is super smart... Continue on with your agenda... Glad you are here...

Are you Wack's agent or best friend?

[Skeptable]

20 minutes ago, thadude said:

Are you Wack's agent or best friend?

No, I just don't buy into rhetoric just because its the common thought.  I am skeptical of the common thought... I will not be a sheep to follow these media hacks thoughts... They write these stories because people in NY love to here about a good trainwreck... and Hack is on tap.... until he performs... then its the next guy... 

Yankees were going to be the Worst team in the AL this year... didn't you hear?? Well that's all you heard from every news outlet for months... they got rid of everyone... They have no pitching ... all young team... How are they doing??

[Sperm Edwards]

12 hours ago, JetFaninMI said:

I agree with those reasons as well. If Hack is the starter that scrutiny will only intensify as the season goes on for all those reasons. If He can succeed in the face of what will amount to be a ton of adversity it will say volumes about his mental ability to withstand the rigors of playing here. It will also vindicate Macc for picking him where he did. Now do I believe Hack can do it? I truly don't know because I really have nothing to go on to have an opinion. This will have to be played out in the pre-season and camp. Gun to my head? I would say right now NO I don't think Hack will measure up and the franchise QB hunt will continue. Prove me wrong Hack and I will gladly eat crow. Until then......who knows?

It's not about proving me right or wrong. My issue is more with statements akin to: When he gets onto the field he'll either perform acceptably or he'll exhibit general failure.

This uses the weak excuse, that Hackenberg hasn't yet failed on an NFL field in a regular season game, to suggest these 2 outcomes have an equal 1 in 2 chance of occurring. Like flipping a penny: it'll either come up heads or it'll come up tails. This has been discussed before recently.

The problem is, in using this type of logic, I could make the same excuse for literally anybody on planet earth having such a 50/50 chance at being a good NFL QB. Not just Hackenberg, but you or I as well.

In reality, he has an infinitely better chance than you or I, but it still isn't as good as 50/50 based on his body of work to date. He was considered a long shot prospect who needed serious muscle memory work that could take years to truly become 2nd-nature (if it ever takes), even under duress, rather than a merely raw prospect who needed experience in a relatively foreign system. Yet we still took him in the 2nd round against better advice. He was so much worse than expected that we carried 4 QBs last year and wouldn't even let him on the field in a single, meaningless, December game.

If a GM wants to look like a genius for making a questionable pick that pans out, he should prepare for the proportional opposite of such kudos if the pick fails as expected. It's why "reach" picks are scrutinized every year, even though they sometimes pan out. 

[Dcat]

12 hours ago, thadude said:

So it's fake news Hack looks bad in practice and hits reporters in the face standing 10 feet from the sidelines?

geez, you are getting worse each day.  Almost to the point of unreadable.  The couple of throws that hit reporters were because the receivers ran the wrong route and there was no one there where they were supposed to be.  Cimini verified this, or did you happen to miss that?  Plus, QBs hit people and objects standing on the sidelines in practice quite often.  It's not uncommon.  You act as though Hack is the only young QB to do this. Come on man.  Give us a break.  Your posts are just redundant and, frankly, unproductive.  We all complain, including me, I get that.  But this ALL you do here.  It's tiring, and people don't want to read anything you post.  Well I guess that's what the ignore feature is for, but I've never needed to use it.

[Skeptable]

18 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It's not about proving me right or wrong. My issue is more with statements akin to: When he gets onto the field he'll either perform acceptably or he'll exhibit general failure.

This uses the weak excuse, that Hackenberg hasn't yet failed on an NFL field in a regular season game, to suggest these 2 outcomes have an equal 1 in 2 chance of occurring. Like flipping a penny: it'll either come up heads or it'll come up tails. This has been discussed before recently.

The problem is, in using this type of logic, I could make the same excuse for literally anybody on planet earth having such a 50/50 chance at being a good NFL QB. Not just Hackenberg, but you or I as well.

In reality, he has an infinitely better chance than you or I, but it still isn't as good as 50/50 based on his body of work to date. He was considered a long shot prospect who needed serious muscle memory work that could take years to truly become 2nd-nature (if it ever takes), even under duress, rather than a merely raw prospect who needed experience in a relatively foreign system. Yet we still took him in the 2nd round against better advice. He was so much worse than expected that we carried 4 QBs last year and wouldn't even let him on the field in a single, meaningless, December game.

If a GM wants to look like a genius for making a questionable pick that pans out, he should prepare for the proportional opposite of such kudos if the pick fails as expected. It's why "reach" picks are scrutinized every year, even though they sometimes pan out. 

I love reading these educated responses... The problem with this is that you are basing is body of work on a Rookie year... Most other QB prospects get at least a 2nd or 3rd year before they start to hear they are a failure... There is not even a second preseason to judge from yet... You say his chances are less then 50/50 but in reality they are no more or less then when they started... 

[Ex-Rex]

For me to have Hackenberg start all he needs to do is show up at training camp. 

[Skeptable]

6 minutes ago, Ex-Rex said:

For me to have Hackenberg start all he needs to do is show up at training camp. 

Not start 2017.... start 2018... so what would he have to prove to you this year in order for him to get your vote the following year.

[jeremy2020]

50 minutes ago, Skeptable said:

I love reading these educated responses... The problem with this is that you are basing is body of work on a Rookie year... Most other QB prospects get at least a 2nd or 3rd year before they start to hear they are a failure... There is not even a second preseason to judge from yet... You say his chances are less then 50/50 but in reality they are no more or less then when they started... 

You're still stuck in the logic trap that you've built for yourself. Potential future events does not render the existing information non-existent. This is the you can't judge Geno until he has superstar receivers all over again except even worse because it's "You can't judge hack based on previously occurring poor play because he might perform well in the future". Lunacy.

[ZachEY]

On 6/29/2017 at 9:46 AM, Skeptable said:

Move past the two safeties ... its an old and tired argument already and the season hasn't even started.... It's proven that many teams have taken 2 safeties in a single draft... Even superbowl winning franchises... And so what if he passed on subpar QB talents for two prospects in the strength of the draft... In fact most fans would want the GM to draft players that are strong in the draft and not weak talent pool

Lol, it is literally the most recent meaningful decision this team made, but the fans should ignore it.  Also, please cite which Super Bowl winning team used a top 10 pick on a safety, and then again took a safety with a top 40 pick.  Team and year, please.

[Skeptable]

14 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

You're still stuck in the logic trap that you've built for yourself. Potential future events does not render the existing information non-existent. This is the you can't judge Geno until he has superstar receivers all over again except even worse because it's "You can't judge hack based on previously occurring poor play because he might perform well in the future". Lunacy.

What is lunacy is the fact that the QB has just started his 2nd year and most here have never even seen him throw a single pass in the NFL yet... He is already a bust... at least Geno had two seasons to prove he was a bust. 

[Jet Nut]

3 hours ago, thadude said:

Yeah Kim Jones is great you're right

Quote or copy and paste where I used any of those words.  Are you illiterate or a chronic liar?  Which is it?

And in no way does anyone need to be great to know more than you ever will, you're not close to being bright.  

I'll be waiting for your copy and paste.  But expect you to just ignore it as you always do when youre called out for making shlt up

[Skeptable]

Just now, gEYno said:

Lol, it is literally the most recent meaningful decision this team made, but the fans should ignore it.  Also, please cite which Super Bowl winning team used a top 10 pick on a safety, and then again took a safety with a top 40 pick.  Team and year, please.

Flawed logic... The logic should be name a team that won a superbowl with two all pro safeties... Who cares when they were drafted or if they were drafted in separate years or not... 

[ZachEY]

19 minutes ago, Skeptable said:

Flawed logic... The logic should be name a team that won a superbowl with two all pro safeties... Who cares when they were drafted or if they were drafted in separate years or not... 

Incorrect.  It shouldn't be name a team that won with two all-pro safeties.  First, in the post quoted, you stated that Super Bowl winning teams drafted two safeties in one draft.  However, you failed to specify if they were drafted with the teams two most valuable resources.  I asked you to do so.  Nothing wrong with that logic.  Second, the flawed logic is the assumption that the Jets have all-pro safeties.  Rather, they have two rookies who will both be all-pro in the absolute best case scenario.  Third, combining the first two, if the other teams with all-pro safety tandems found their all-pro safeties outside of two top 40 (including one top 10) pick, perhaps then two safeties are not the smartest way to allocate resources, even according to those Super Bowl winning team(s).  Fourth, what percentage of Super Bowl winning teams have two all-pro safeties and how does that compare to the teams that have all-pro QBs?  LTs?  Pass Rushers?  WRs?  RBs?  CBs?  All positions where the Jets are exceptionally weak.

Unfortunately, logic that doesn't agree with your biases doesn't mean it's flawed.  It just means you're biased.

[Skeptable]

12 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Incorrect.  It shouldn't be name a team that won with two all-pro safeties.  First, in the post quoted, you stated that Super Bowl winning teams drafted two safeties in one draft.  However, you failed to specify if they were drafted with the teams two most valuable resources.  I asked you to do so.  Nothing wrong with that logic.  Second, the flawed logic is the assumption that the Jets have all-pro safeties.  Rather, they have two rookies who will both be all-pro in the absolute best case scenario.  Third, combining the first two, if the other teams with all-pro safety tandems found their all-pro safeties outside of two top 40 (including one top 10) pick, perhaps then two safeties are not the smartest way to allocate resources, even according to those Super Bowl winning team(s).  Fourth, what percentage of Super Bowl winning teams have two all-pro safeties and how does that compare to the teams that have all-pro QBs?  LTs?  Pass Rushers?  WRs?  RBs?  CBs?  All positions where the Jets are exceptionally weak.

Unfortunately, logic that doesn't agree with your biases doesn't mean it's flawed.  It just means you're biased.

Dude, you haven't even seen them play... It's all speculation... I completely disagree with your logic and we are not going to agree... Just because a team drafts 2 safeties back to back doesn't mean that it was a failed draft... That is all I am saying... so move on... the argument is stale and old already. When these 2 safeties turn out to be the best tandem of safeties the Jets have ever seen, you won't hear complaining.

You logic is that no team has ever done it before, so it doesn't work, is also flawed... I am saying that if they are two quality players at the position what does it matter... There have been plenty of teams that have won superbowls because of their safety play. Just because a team hasn't done it yet in the same draft back to back doesn't mean it was it wrong or bad... It just hasn't been done like that YET... Redskins drafted two QBs in the same draft on ... seems like that is now starting to pay off, whether you like Cousins or not... Now you are going to say what superbowls has Cousins won... I don't care.  As much as you think that supports your argument it doesn't

[JohnnyLV]

1 hour ago, jeremy2020 said:

You're still stuck in the logic trap that you've built for yourself. Potential future events does not render the existing information non-existent. This is the you can't judge Geno until he has superstar receivers all over again except even worse because it's "You can't judge hack based on previously occurring poor play because he might perform well in the future". Lunacy.

I would say you are the one caught in a trap. You are putting equal value on all previous results with current results and completely ignoring the potential especially a QB to be developed. 

Reality is they are no where near equal. Recent results and potential are far far more important than previous results to the point that it is at this point completely irrelevant.

All that matters now is development and the tools he as a QB which ARE elite.

The reality is that outside of the first round and maybe even the top 20, NFL teams draft POTENTIAL  and use tape interviews and metrics to choose the players that have the best statisticalchance to succeed. 

Once drafted previous results are irrelevant compared to developmental path. Your post is the one filled with lunacy.

 

 

 

 

[Skeptable]

56 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Incorrect.  It shouldn't be name a team that won with two all-pro safeties.  First, in the post quoted, you stated that Super Bowl winning teams drafted two safeties in one draft.  However, you failed to specify if they were drafted with the teams two most valuable resources.  I asked you to do so.  Nothing wrong with that logic.  Second, the flawed logic is the assumption that the Jets have all-pro safeties.  Rather, they have two rookies who will both be all-pro in the absolute best case scenario.  Third, combining the first two, if the other teams with all-pro safety tandems found their all-pro safeties outside of two top 40 (including one top 10) pick, perhaps then two safeties are not the smartest way to allocate resources, even according to those Super Bowl winning team(s).  Fourth, what percentage of Super Bowl winning teams have two all-pro safeties and how does that compare to the teams that have all-pro QBs?  LTs?  Pass Rushers?  WRs?  RBs?  CBs?  All positions where the Jets are exceptionally weak.

Unfortunately, logic that doesn't agree with your biases doesn't mean it's flawed.  It just means you're biased.

and if you want an example of a team that drafted 3 DBs  in the 1st-3rd round started them all and won a Superbowl... Lott, Wright, and Williamson, Hicks the other free safety was in his 2nd year. 1981 San Francisco 49ers... So can we cut the sh*t now... Yes they had a particular HOF QB in his 3rd year that was drafted in the 3rd round, but at the time comeback Joe was barely known and entering his first year as a starter.

[nyjunc]

24 minutes ago, Skeptable said:

and if you want an example of a team that drafted 3 DBs  in the 1st-3rd round started them all and won a Superbowl... Lott, Wright, and Williamson, Hicks the other free safety was in his 2nd year. 1981 San Francisco 49ers... So can we cut the sh*t now... Yes they had a particular HOF QB in his 3rd year that was drafted in the 3rd round, but at the time comeback Joe was barely known and entering his first year as a starter.

I like your optimism  at some point we have to have some good luck, right?

[Skeptable]

3 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

I like your optimism  at some point we have to have some good luck, right?

I am not saying that i think that this will happen, I just wish people wouldn't just jump to conclusions without seeing any of draft picks this year play... Including Hack

[nyjunc]

6 minutes ago, Skeptable said:

I am not saying that i think that this will happen, I just wish people wouldn't just jump to conclusions without seeing any of draft picks this year play... Including Hack

I understand your point.  No one would ever say that will happen but you never know.

[BCJet]

1 hour ago, gEYno said:

Incorrect.  It shouldn't be name a team that won with two all-pro safeties.  First, in the post quoted, you stated that Super Bowl winning teams drafted two safeties in one draft.  However, you failed to specify if they were drafted with the teams two most valuable resources.  I asked you to do so.  Nothing wrong with that logic.  Second, the flawed logic is the assumption that the Jets have all-pro safeties.  Rather, they have two rookies who will both be all-pro in the absolute best case scenario.  Third, combining the first two, if the other teams with all-pro safety tandems found their all-pro safeties outside of two top 40 (including one top 10) pick, perhaps then two safeties are not the smartest way to allocate resources, even according to those Super Bowl winning team(s).  Fourth, what percentage of Super Bowl winning teams have two all-pro safeties and how does that compare to the teams that have all-pro QBs?  LTs?  Pass Rushers?  WRs?  RBs?  CBs?  All positions where the Jets are exceptionally weak.

Unfortunately, logic that doesn't agree with your biases doesn't mean it's flawed.  It just means you're biased.

In the 2009 Draft the Patriots took Patrick Chung a safety at #34 then took Darius Butler, a hybrid CB/Safety 7 picks later at 41.  The following year, they used their first round pick on another safety Devin McCourty at pick 27.

If that isnt an example of a SB winning team that understands defense, using draft capital to shore up the safety position, then there is no point continuing this debate.  There wasnt a franchise LT, pass rusher or QB available when we took Marcus Maye - he filled a need and was also the BPA.  

As an aside, and i realize it wasnt a second round pick, but seattle took earl thomas and kam chancellor in the 5th when the had no QB - how did that work out for their defense? 

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, Skeptable said:

Dude, you haven't even seen them play... It's all speculation... I completely disagree with your logic and we are not going to agree... Just because a team drafts 2 safeties back to back doesn't mean that it was a failed draft... That is all I am saying... so move on... the argument is stale and old already. When these 2 safeties turn out to be the best tandem of safeties the Jets have ever seen, you won't hear complaining.

You logic is that no team has ever done it before, so it doesn't work, is also flawed... I am saying that if they are two quality players at the position what does it matter... There have been plenty of teams that have won superbowls because of their safety play. Just because a team hasn't done it yet in the same draft back to back doesn't mean it was it wrong or bad... It just hasn't been done like that YET... Redskins drafted two QBs in the same draft on ... seems like that is now starting to pay off, whether you like Cousins or not... Now you are going to say what superbowls has Cousins won... I don't care.  As much as you think that supports your argument it doesn't

Your initial point is exactly why this was a bad move.  The Jets need them to turn out to be all-pro or, as you put it, the "best tandem of safeties the Jets have ever seen" in order for this to be a good move.  Just because you have pre-assumed they will be the best ever (WHEN), doesn't make it true, or even reasonably likely.  If they are merely "pretty good," it wasn't a smart use of resources.

Where do you draw that line as to that different positions don't matter?  If you were faced with the chance to draft a good QB, but could take the greatest punter of all time, does position not matter?  How high would you draft the world's greatest long snapper?  There is a formula to success in the NFL, and while it's not perfect, the teams that routinely succeed follow it generally.  This isn't even a matter of debate, the proof is out there:

There are 8 position groups that NFL front offices, when asked to rank them by their dollars, place ahead of safety.  So, obviously the NFL disagrees with you about the importance of the position.

But, I'll give you this, you totally dominated that argument regarding Cousins and the Redskins that never happened where I took that position that I don't actually hold.  So, grab yourself a trophy for that imaginary win and savor it!

51 minutes ago, Skeptable said:

and if you want an example of a team that drafted 3 DBs  in the 1st-3rd round started them all and won a Superbowl... Lott, Wright, and Williamson, Hicks the other free safety was in his 2nd year. 1981 San Francisco 49ers... So can we cut the sh*t now... Yes they had a particular HOF QB in his 3rd year that was drafted in the 3rd round, but at the time comeback Joe was barely known and entering his first year as a starter.

Even if we accept that this is the same premise, by ignoring the fact that they had a QB who was one of the greatest all time already on the roster, by ignoring the fact that safety and corner are not the same thing, and by ignoring the fact that the league was entirely different in 1981... Ignoring all of those things, you need to go back 36 years to show this was a good idea.

We'll "cut the sh*t now" when someone can actually make an intelligent argument as to why, by money, the 9th most valuable position group in the NFL was worth doubling down on for a team that has almost no NFL talent at the first 8.

[jeremy2020]

1 hour ago, johnnysd said:

I would say you are the one caught in a trap. You are putting equal value on all previous results with current results and completely ignoring the potential especially a QB to be developed. 

There are no recent results. Is this f*cking narnia? Non-existent possible future events do not have any merit over things that actually happened.

[Lot K Tailgaters]

Show that he has the ability to be an above average QB and not make stupid mistakes. 

[ZachEY]

11 minutes ago, BCJet said:

In the 2009 Draft the Patriots took Patrick Chung a safety at #34 then took Darius Butler, a hybrid CB/Safety 7 picks later at 41.  The following year, they used their first round pick on another safety Devin McCourty at pick 27.

If that isnt an example of a SB winning team that understands defense, using draft capital to shore up the safety position, then there is no point continuing this debate.  There wasnt a franchise LT, pass rusher or QB available when we took Marcus Maye - he filled a need and was also the BPA.  

As an aside, and i realize it wasnt a second round pick, but seattle took earl thomas and kam chancellor in the 5th when the had no QB - how did that work out for their defense? 

McCourty was drafted as a CB, then eventually converted when he failed there and became a good safety.  Bulter played CB for his entire career too, no?  And is now only considering a move to safety.  So, not really an accurate portrayal of what the Pats did.  Had we drafted a safety and then a CB, you wouldn't hear the same complaints.  Also, if we had half the quality roster the Pats had, then you could make that argument.  And, there may not have been a franchise QB, LT, or pass rusher available at that point, but either of the next two picks (plus a bunch of other 2nd rounders) would have been good ones and more valuable to a team with no offensive threats whatsoever at this time.

If the Jets drafted a safety in the 5th, I don't think people would complain.  Nor, if they had drafted an OT before that first safety (with one of their two 1st round picks) and then a quality WR in the second.

[JohnnyLV]

Just now, jeremy2020 said:

There are no recent results. Is this f*cking narnia? Non-existent possible future events do not have any merit over things that actually happened.

Lol, yes there are. He looked noticeably improved at the end of the offseason program than at the beginning and seems to be well on the way to fixing his footwork issues, (which was the source of basically all of his issues) since not one person mentioned poor footwork. Plus you have the QB coach raving about him and Morton and Bowles consistently praising him.

Yet in your world all that matters is his struggles in college, and not playing last year with you actually stating they have more correlation to future success than what we are seeing in year 2. 100% completely idiotic.

 

[JohnnyLV]

18 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Your initial point is exactly why this was a bad move.  The Jets need them to turn out to be all-pro or, as you put it, the "best tandem of safeties the Jets have ever seen" in order for this to be a good move.  Just because you have pre-assumed they will be the best ever (WHEN), doesn't make it true, or even reasonably likely.  If they are merely "pretty good," it wasn't a smart use of resources.

Where do you draw that line as to that different positions don't matter?  If you were faced with the chance to draft a good QB, but could take the greatest punter of all time, does position not matter?  How high would you draft the world's greatest long snapper?  There is a formula to success in the NFL, and while it's not perfect, the teams that routinely succeed follow it generally.  This isn't even a matter of debate, the proof is out there:

There are 8 position groups that NFL front offices, when asked to rank them by their dollars, place ahead of safety.  So, obviously the NFL disagrees with you about the importance of the position.

But, I'll give you this, you totally dominated that argument regarding Cousins and the Redskins that never happened where I took that position that I don't actually hold.  So, grab yourself a trophy for that imaginary win and savor it!

Even if we accept that this is the same premise, by ignoring the fact that they had a QB who was one of the greatest all time already on the roster, by ignoring the fact that safety and corner are not the same thing, and by ignoring the fact that the league was entirely different in 1981... Ignoring all of those things, you need to go back 36 years to show this was a good idea.

We'll "cut the sh*t now" when someone can actually make an intelligent argument as to why, by money, the 9th most valuable position group in the NFL was worth doubling down on for a team that has almost no NFL talent at the first 8.

One consideration for your chart. The Jets didn't sign 2 high priced safeties so for the next 4 years they will pay less for 2 potential pro bowl safeties than the average team spends on one. Plus if you allow for Dalvin Cook likely not even being on our board, there really wasnt one one of the more elite positions with high value available at that 2nd pick than Maye. Jamal Adams was a no brainer, so really only the pick in the second round is questionable and Mac went BPA.

I personally do not like it, but I think it is also not as egregiously bad as people think it is assuming we pick some elite positions such as OT and WR early next year. 

 

[Skeptable]

20 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Your initial point is exactly why this was a bad move.  The Jets need them to turn out to be all-pro or, as you put it, the "best tandem of safeties the Jets have ever seen" in order for this to be a good move.  Just because you have pre-assumed they will be the best ever (WHEN), doesn't make it true, or even reasonably likely.  If they are merely "pretty good," it wasn't a smart use of resources.

Where do you draw that line as to that different positions don't matter?  If you were faced with the chance to draft a good QB, but could take the greatest punter of all time, does position not matter?  How high would you draft the world's greatest long snapper?  There is a formula to success in the NFL, and while it's not perfect, the teams that routinely succeed follow it generally.  This isn't even a matter of debate, the proof is out there:

There are 8 position groups that NFL front offices, when asked to rank them by their dollars, place ahead of safety.  So, obviously the NFL disagrees with you about the importance of the position.

But, I'll give you this, you totally dominated that argument regarding Cousins and the Redskins that never happened where I took that position that I don't actually hold.  So, grab yourself a trophy for that imaginary win and savor it!

Even if we accept that this is the same premise, by ignoring the fact that they had a QB who was one of the greatest all time already on the roster, by ignoring the fact that safety and corner are not the same thing, and by ignoring the fact that the league was entirely different in 1981... Ignoring all of those things, you need to go back 36 years to show this was a good idea.

We'll "cut the sh*t now" when someone can actually make an intelligent argument as to why, by money, the 9th most valuable position group in the NFL was worth doubling down on for a team that has almost no NFL talent at the first 8.

But to your first point you have already declared this draft a failure without them playing... You have no idea. All I am saying is let them play a couple years before calling it a failure.

Raiders have drafted a punter  in the first round and have won 3 Superbowls... that alone should make your argument null and void... And drafted a Place Kicker in the first round in 2000 and is still on the team and should have made 2 superbowls... damn tuck rule...

Just because the front office values the positions at different costs doesn't exactly make them more or less valuable... How is that vaunted Seattle Defense without Earl Thomas.

Win...

Yes but Joe was in his 1st year as a starting QB... Hack hasn't even played yet.... how can you even make an assumption without even seeing him on the field.

You have to start two Safeties in the NFL... I could argue they had none... definitely none above replacement value... so where is the harm in drafting two players that automatically improve your team.

 

[JohnnyLV]

On 6/28/2017 at 10:24 AM, thadude said:

I don't even think Hack will be on the roster in 2018 but even if he was and we go 4-12 there is no way he's beating out Rosen or Allen.  Even Lamar Jackson would start over Hack, easily

The only possible way Hack is not on the roster next year is career ending injury. Period. It is just idiotic to say otherwise and you need to stop. You are ruining a lot of threads with your trolling.

[varjet]

7 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

One consideration for your chart. The Jets didn't sign 2 high priced safeties so for the next 4 years they will pay less for 2 potential pro bowl safeties than the average team spends on one. Plus if you allow for Dalvin Cook likely not even being on our board, there really wasnt one one of the more elite positions with high value available at that 2nd pick than Maye. Jamal Adams was a no brainer, so really only the pick in the second round is questionable and Mac went BPA.

I personally do not like it, but I think it is also not as egregiously bad as people think it is assuming we pick some elite positions such as OT and WR early next year. 

 

Adams was absolutely the right pick there.  On the second round pick, Maye, the Jets (and I think this call is Mac) are either brilliant or stupid.

Based on what appeared to be their plan at the time of the draft, the other logical pick was Quincy Wilson, WHO PLAYED NEXT TO MAYE AT FLORIDA.  FWIW, I had more about Wilson than Maye before the draft.   So assuming Mac did his diligence on Maye, every time he did that he also watched Wilson.  So he must really like Maye over Wilson.

The best talents, particularly for what the Jets needed, were the CBs from Washington and UCLA.  They were just injured.  If the Jets are in a long-term build, those could have been the right picks.  I thought at the draft that they were trying harder to be respectable this year.  It was after the draft that the Jets went full on tank mode.

Mixon and Cook were likely never on the Jets draftboard.  Unfortunate, but true.  By being in NY the Jets can sign a Marshall or Decker who wants to be here and will use the location responsibly.  Unfortunately, that also disqualifies people like Cook, Mixon and DGB who are too risky here.

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, johnnysd said:

One consideration for your chart. The Jets didn't sign 2 high priced safeties so for the next 4 years they will pay less for 2 potential pro bowl safeties than the average team spends on one. Plus if you allow for Dalvin Cook likely not even being on our board, there really wasnt one one of the more elite positions with high value available at that 2nd pick than Maye. Jamal Adams was a no brainer, so really only the pick in the second round is questionable and Mac went BPA.

I personally do not like it, but I think it is also not as egregiously bad as people think it is assuming we pick some elite positions such as OT and WR early next year. 

 

I realize that the financial cost is different, but opportunity cost is not.  And, I'm expressing the financials in terms of value the league puts in each position.

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, Skeptable said:

But to your first point you have already declared this draft a failure without them playing... You have no idea. All I am saying is let them play a couple years before calling it a failure.

Raiders have drafted a punter  in the first round and have won 3 Superbowls... that alone should make your argument null and void... And drafted a Place Kicker in the first round in 2000 and is still on the team and should have made 2 superbowls... damn tuck rule...

Just because the front office values the positions at different costs doesn't exactly make them more or less valuable... How is that vaunted Seattle Defense without Earl Thomas.

Win...

Yes but Joe was in his 1st year as a starting QB... Hack hasn't even played yet.... how can you even make an assumption without even seeing him on the field.

You have to start two Safeties in the NFL... I could argue they had none... definitely none above replacement value... so where is the harm in drafting two players that automatically improve your team.

 

Again, I don't really need to let them play a couple years when my concern is process.  Lets assume they turn out to be great, the point is having a great safety tandem is not what you build a team around.  It's a luxury.  I have absolutely nothing against either player, but, we need them both to be amazing for this move to make any sense at all.  Even then, if one of the QBs turns out to be good, it was still a mistake.

If my argument was null and void about drafting a punter in the first round you wouldn't have to go back over 40 years for your example.  Teams would do it with regularly.  Keep shooting for the statistical anomaly - I'll stick with the tried and true method of building a competitive franchise.  As for kickers - at least they score points.  I would never do it, if you have a very talented team and the right circumstance, you could make a case.  Unfortunately, the Jets have the least talented team as per multiple sources.

Earl Thomas is a great player, and worth his draft slot.  Jamal Adams may be a great player and worth his draft slot.  But Seattle also sat at 6 that very year, and they didn't take Earl Thomas.  They were willing to let him go to another team in favor of a LT.  What does that tell you about process and value?

As for Hackenberg, did Joe Montana suck in college?  Did he suck in every opportunity that we have to see him?

The harm is in opportunity lost in making the team better at more important positions.  But, this is clearly a concept you're not understanding, so best to move along.

[jeremy2020]

1 hour ago, johnnysd said:

Lol, yes there are. He looked noticeably improved at the end of the offseason program than at the beginning and seems to be well on the way to fixing his footwork issues, (which was the source of basically all of his issues) since not one person mentioned poor footwork. Plus you have the QB coach raving about him and Morton and Bowles consistently praising him.

Yet in your world all that matters is his struggles in college, and not playing last year with you actually stating they have more correlation to future success than what we are seeing in year 2. 100% completely idiotic.

 

So a rookie mini-camp without pads that no one actually saw the majority of and coaches who are obviously going to play him up like every coach about every QB drafted does (seriously, find me a quote from a coach employed at the time saying the guy drafted in round 1/2  2 doesn't have it)....outweighs everything else...

Sure, college performance doesn't matter...all kinds of QBs who weren't good in college end up as quality starter NFL QBs. It's not like is an infrequent occurrence. 

Feel free to live in narnia. It's a great place. 

[Skeptable]

43 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Again, I don't really need to let them play a couple years when my concern is process.  Lets assume they turn out to be great, the point is having a great safety tandem is not what you build a team around.  It's a luxury.  I have absolutely nothing against either player, but, we need them both to be amazing for this move to make any sense at all.  Even then, if one of the QBs turns out to be good, it was still a mistake.

If my argument was null and void about drafting a punter in the first round you wouldn't have to go back over 40 years for your example.  Teams would do it with regularly.  Keep shooting for the statistical anomaly - I'll stick with the tried and true method of building a competitive franchise.  As for kickers - at least they score points.  I would never do it, if you have a very talented team and the right circumstance, you could make a case.  Unfortunately, the Jets have the least talented team as per multiple sources.

Earl Thomas is a great player, and worth his draft slot.  Jamal Adams may be a great player and worth his draft slot.  But Seattle also sat at 6 that very year, and they didn't take Earl Thomas.  They were willing to let him go to another team in favor of a LT.  What does that tell you about process and value?

As for Hackenberg, did Joe Montana suck in college?  Did he suck in every opportunity that we have to see him?

The harm is in opportunity lost in making the team better at more important positions.  But, this is clearly a concept you're not understanding, so best to move along.

I understand your concept... but that is what it is... it is a concept... just because the Jets didn't do your method or another common method doesn't mean it was wrong... That is my point that YOU are not getting.... You are basing these assumptions on what other teams have done... I am saying... going outside the norm has worked for other franchises, new and in the past so whether you believe or not doesn't mean I am right or wrong or you are right or wrong it is an opinion both ways...

Drafting Maye could turn into an epic failure or a great move, but at this point you have no basis to make an argument either way other than it isn't what winning franchises have done in the past... But I keep trying to prove to you that franchises have done similar moves with great success. Not exactly the same move because most likely there hasn't been the opportunity to do so as there haven't been this many highly rated safeties in the same draft before... 

You are right about earl thomas but there have been other safeties that are game changers that were drafted in the top 6 and changed the entire defense around them... Eric Berry for a recent example.

Hackenberg was great in year one... who knows...

But other then a CB rather then Maye in the 2nd round what would YOU have drafted at the time... 

Also.... Jets have stuck to the 'script' for 45 years of lousy drafting.... and where are they now...