Jump to content

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


Skeptable

Recommended Posts

Hopefully whatever Hackenberg shows this year, he does it in spectacularly extreme/obvious fashion.

Either:

  • he lights it up enough that we can be truly confident in passing up on drafting a round 1 QB, freeing up a high pick for a hard-to-fill, need-position elsewhere

or

  • he flops so horribly that it leaves no doubt what we should do; there is no passing up on another Derek Carr and we get a higher pick in each round to work with

Worst case would be he looks meh and #flashes here or there, particularly as the season closes, so we finish with 6-8 wins, bypass the QB position in the draft, and he still never pans out as our starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, T0mShane said:

Two things about this:

 

1. Has anyone ever provided a link to this assertion that Hack was going to absolutely positively definitely totally going to be redshirted from the second he was drafted? It sounds like something people made up.

 

2. If, indeed, Hackenberg was so damaged and so compromised as a prospect that he absolutely positively definitely totally couldn't play in year one, how do they justify spending a second round pick on him?

1. No

2. They can't he was a brainfart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

1. Of course not. The very closest anyone can come to that is Maccagnan saying the following in early May:

  • "I think in a perfect world, especially with quarterbacks--some quarterbacks come in and play right away, and some do well, and some struggle, and they go through growing pains," Maccagnan said. "But I think at the end of the day, in a perfect world, you like to give those guys a chance to sort of grow, develop before you have to throw them into the fire."

But this itself doesn't come close to saying he was absolutely positively definitely totally going to be redshirted. Especially considering the 2016 Jets clearly didn't exist in this "perfect world" at QB, and that in the same media session he also said this:

  • "I think quarterbacks are probably one of the harder positions to transition into in the NFL. I know there's always a desire and feel to have them go out there and play right away. The reality of it is, though, it's going to be determined by how he does. And I think my personal opinion is we'll see where he's at and how he is in terms of assimilating to our offense and our system. But like I said, I think it's a natural maturation process."

Mind you, the above was just Macc talking about playing (i.e. starting) him outright right away; not even the far lower bar of having him merely suit up as the backup QB.

I guess Maccagnan stating his own "personal opinion" isn't as credible as others making up what his personal opinion really was.

 

2. The answer is he didn't envision Hackenberg that way. He was even trying to trade Geno until the dual-hit in PS4 (Petty injuring his shoulder, followed by Hack melting down on TV). Then, and only then, did an obvious CYA "redshirt" comment surface from Bowles.

There was no documented intention to redshirt Hack until he practiced and played in preseason and it was obvious they had to hide him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Literally every thing you say is incorrect.

1) I complained about doubling down at the safety position, not specifically taking Adams, a move I may not have made, but certainly understand.

2) I suggested they could have taken a number of higher value positions in both draft slots.

3) Learn to read charts, or just ignore them.  The one posted is about the entire league that year, not one team.

I love love love it when I'm told what my own thoughts really were, contrary to what I actually said.

Particularly on the heels of telling me what Maccagnan's thoughts really were, contrary to what he actually said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Well you must know more about the GM's decision than the GM who selected him, because that's what Macc said in early May: that Hackenberg's role in 2016 would be determined by how he does, not that it's predetermined redshirt status no matter what.

If that was the case, the easy thing for all would have been to say - before the first time he put a Jets helmet on in a practice - that they all viewed Hackenberg exclusively as a long term project, and that they don't envision playing him at all this year. That would take pressure off everyone: himself, the coaches, and most of all Hackenberg.

There weren't any "redshirt" type comments so much as leaked from the team until September (after Hackenberg's embarrassing preseason game 4, which itself followed the unsuccessful attempt to trade Geno for anything of value). Then later, after Geno went out for the year in October, they gave him yet another opportunity to dress for games when they held a 2-man tryout for the #2 job between Petty and Hackenberg. 

Ultimately, Hackenberg will be what he'll be, and if he turns into a stud QB, none of us will give a crap about his rookie season or his draft slot. 

Macc said over and over, before camp, not September, that Hack wasn't playing his rookie season.  I've given you quotes and links from may.   Which you insisted on.  I'm not going through that waste of time again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gEYno said:

Literally every thing you say is incorrect.

1) I complained about doubling down at the safety position, not specifically taking Adams, a move I may not have made, but certainly understand.

2) I suggested they could have taken a number of higher value positions in both draft slots.

3) Learn to read charts, or just ignore them.  The one posted is about the entire league that year, not one team.

One more time, the game is changing.  It's not the 90's, 80's or 70's.  Passing rules and QBs put more pressure on the entire secondary.  When you need two and find two, one with the talent to be one of the best in the draft and on your teams D, you take them.  Both.  You don't say fu(k it, I'm taking a less talent player because is already took one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

One more time, the game is changing.  It's not the 90's, 80's or 70's.  Passing rules and QBs put more pressure on the entire secondary.  When you need two and find two, one with the talent to be one of the best in the draft and on your teams D, you take them.  Both.  You don't say fu(k it, I'm taking a less talent player because is already took one.

"The rules have made it impossible to stop the pass so we need to double down on guys whom the rules have  deemphasized."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

One more time, the game is changing.  It's not the 90's, 80's or 70's.  Passing rules and QBs put more pressure on the entire secondary.  When you need two and find two, one with the talent to be one of the best in the draft and on your teams D, you take them.  Both.  You don't say fu(k it, I'm taking a less talent player because is already took one.

You can say it one more time, or as many times as you like, the league still doesn't value the position highly.  That's an actual fact, backed by data.

Now, lets pretend what you say is actually accurate... How mad are you that the Jets took two players at safety who are not known for elite coverage skills and who both, according to multiple draft profiles, struggle downfield and don't have a great skill set for the center field role?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

Macc said over and over, before camp, not September, that Hack wasn't playing his rookie season.  I've given you quotes and links from may.   Which you insisted on.  I'm not going through that waste of time again. 

No you did not. You have never given me a link with Maccagnan stating Hackenberg was not playing in his rookie season before camp, because none exist. If you gave links to articles, they were articles where he did not say that. He didn't say it once before camp, let alone over and over. 

Yet you choose to flat-out ignore an actual direct quote of his, within one week after drafting Hackenberg, where he says they'll see where he's at to determine his playing time. And that was in response to questions about the Jets opening the season with Hackenberg as the outright starter, not even as the #2 QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

"The rules have made it impossible to stop the pass so we need to double down on guys whom the rules have  deemphasized."

Other than they e only been deemphasized here, by fans who normally moan over any Jet pick what's even the point? 

Deemphasized, lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

"The rules have made it impossible to stop the pass so we need to double down on guys whom the rules have  deemphasized."

Its like when we got all those 3-4 DEs but no edge rusher, and thats worked out great

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No you did not. You have never given me a link with Maccagnan stating Hackenberg was not playing in his rookie season before camp, because none exist. If you gave links to articles, they were articles where he did not say that. He didn't say it once before camp, let alone over and over. 

Yet you choose to flat-out ignore an actual direct quote of his, within one week after drafting Hackenberg, where he says they'll see where he's at to determine his playing time. And that was in response to questions about the Jets opening the season with Hackenberg as the outright starter, not even as the #2 QB.

Chicken or egg.

Did the Jets start the red-shirt campaign after they signed Fitzpatrick back?  Or did the Jets sign the bearded stiff to an enormous deal because their 2nd rounder needed a year on the J.V.? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, gEYno said:

You can say it one more time, or as many times as you like, the league still doesn't value the position highly.  That's an actual fact, backed by data.

Now, lets pretend what you say is actually accurate... How mad are you that the Jets took two players at safety who are not known for elite coverage skills and who both, according to multiple draft profiles, struggle downfield and don't have a great skill set for the center field role?

 No whiney Jets fans who bitch about every draft are spewing the nonsensical idea that they should have passed on their first pick.  It's not an actual fact, no matter how many times you say it is.  

You want to convince us that their the first pick has no coverage skills?  

STRENGTHS

 Natural-born leader of men. Well-built. Will not hesitate for one second as a hitter. Steps downhill looking to punish running backs to set a tone for defense. Toggles between patient and urgent in treks to the ball. Plays off blockers. Approaches target with open arms and wide, balanced base to limit escape routes. Intelligent field general. Gets secondary aligned properly. Plays with plus balance in coverage. Pattern reader who can digest combinations. Alert for misdirection keys from offense. Party crasher on screen plays. Can handle coverage responsibilities against tight ends. Five interceptions and two recovered fumbles over last two seasons at LSU. Special-teams terror as freshman and sophomore, notching 21 tackles. No penalties in 2016. Father, George, was a first-round pick of the Giants in 1984.

...should have passed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No you did not. You have never given me a link with Maccagnan stating Hackenberg was not playing in his rookie season before camp, because none exist. If you gave links to articles, they were articles where he did not say that. He didn't say it once before camp, let alone over and over. 

Yet you choose to flat-out ignore an actual direct quote of his, within one week after drafting Hackenberg, where he says they'll see where he's at to determine his playing time. And that was in response to questions about the Jets opening the season with Hackenberg as the outright starter, not even as the #2 QB.

You're not selling this BS.  I gave you plenty of links all saying the same thing, the plan from the beginning was to let him learn, that he wasn't playing.  

So Macc said they'll see where Hacks at, during the season, not in camp to see if he starts.  After being asked if the kid would see playing time.  Big deal but you turned it into he sucked in game 4 of the preseason so was exiled to the bench.  Congrats, you should work for some media outlet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gEYno said:

Yes, we got the leaderest leader who's ever leadered... But, my compliant has not been with the Adams pick, despite the fact that it's not what I would have done.  My compliant has always been with doubling down at a low-value position.

I also can't comment on whether 10% is meaningful, without the full data-set, but I can comment on the fact that NFL GMs pay safeties less than most other positions, and that matters.

http://www.nfl.com/network/top100

The players also voted soon-to-be 34 year-old Larry Fitzgerald, relegated to running TE routes at under 10 ypr in 2016, as the #45 overall NFL player in 2017 (and #8 WR in the NFL). Ahead of Jordy Nelson, TY Hilton, Amari Cooper, and poor Doug Baldwin who was way down at #88.  Other WRs like Cooks and Thomas didn't make the cut.

There's a reason they don't give all the players the GM duties. 

Further, the players are voting on who they think are the best players regardless of position. Except teams don't draft or build rosters regardless of position and, as you pointed out, they for damn sure don't award contract sizes regardless of position. 

It should also be noted that last year's #1 ranked player (Cam Newton) didn't even crack the top 100 a year later. So there's that. I guess he's not as good a football player anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

You're not selling this BS.  I gave you plenty of links all saying the same thing, the plan from the beginning was to let him learn, that he wasn't playing.  

So Macc said they'll see where Hacks at, during the season, not in camp to see if he starts.  After being asked if the kid would see playing time.  Big deal but you turned it into he sucked in game 4 of the preseason so was exiled to the bench.  Congrats, you should work for some media outlet. 

Provide one. ONE quote where Maccagnan clearly said - before camp, as you claim - Hackenberg absolutely will not play at all as a rookie. 

When Macc said "they'll see" (which already contradicts that claim) -- that was when he was asked questions about Hackenberg opening the 2016 season as the team's starter. 

It's laughable to suggest, in that same interview, if the question asked is: "Hey Mike, if Coach Bowles outright benches Fitzpatrick twice, and both Geno and Bryce are on IR, and you haven't picked up another QB, will Christian play?" And you think his answer - right after drafting him, when he was highest on him - would be an unequivocal "NO!!" :rolleyes: It wasn't even an outright "no" when asked if he might be the opening day starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Provide one. ONE quote where Maccagnan clearly said - before camp, as you claim - Hackenberg absolutely will not play at all as a rookie. 

When Macc said "they'll see" (which already contradicts that claim) -- that was when he was asked questions about Hackenberg opening the 2016 season as the team's starter. 

It's laughable to suggest, in that same interview, if the question asked is: "Hey Mike, if Coach Bowles outright benches Fitzpatrick twice, and both Geno and Bryce are on IR, and you haven't picked up another QB, will Christian play?" And you think his answer - right after drafting him, when he was highest on him - would be an unequivocal "NO!!" :rolleyes: It wasn't even an outright "no" when asked if he might be the opening day starter.

I already did and after reading them, I guess, you ignored them.  I'm not doing it again.  

You can keep secure in thinking somehow You know why he didn't play.  Without a shred of proof and ignoring what was said.  Do I think Hack would play given your scenario?  No, plan was he wasn't playing and Fitz was available.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

I already did and after reading them, I guess, you ignored them.  I'm not doing it again.  

You can keep secure in thinking somehow You know why he didn't play.  Without a shred of proof and ignoring what was said.  Do I think Hack would play given your scenario?  No, plan was he wasn't playing and Fitz was available.  

Can't even quote your own post?  WTF?  I know damn well that I didn't see it, but I wasn't on her much for a while. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Can't even quote your own post?  WTF?  I know damn well that I didn't see it, but I wasn't on her much for a while. 

Gonna have to agree with the old fart. If we, the internet, are going to properly judge a winner here, we need to see the quoted post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

 No whiney Jets fans who bitch about every draft are spewing the nonsensical idea that they should have passed on their first pick.  It's not an actual fact, no matter how many times you say it is.  

You want to convince us that their the first pick has no coverage skills?  

STRENGTHS

 Natural-born leader of men. Well-built. Will not hesitate for one second as a hitter. Steps downhill looking to punish running backs to set a tone for defense. Toggles between patient and urgent in treks to the ball. Plays off blockers. Approaches target with open arms and wide, balanced base to limit escape routes. Intelligent field general. Gets secondary aligned properly. Plays with plus balance in coverage. Pattern reader who can digest combinations. Alert for misdirection keys from offense. Party crasher on screen plays. Can handle coverage responsibilities against tight ends. Five interceptions and two recovered fumbles over last two seasons at LSU. Special-teams terror as freshman and sophomore, notching 21 tackles. No penalties in 2016. Father, George, was a first-round pick of the Giants in 1984.

...should have passed

It is a fact that safety is a low value position on comparison to others.  In fact, it was 9th in 2014.  These are indisputable truths.  The fact that you don't really understand how numbers work doesn't change them.

Also, does only acknowledging the Strengths portion of a draft profile work for all players, or just the Jets picks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Provide one. ONE quote where Maccagnan clearly said - before camp, as you claim - Hackenberg absolutely will not play at all as a rookie. 

When Macc said "they'll see" (which already contradicts that claim) -- that was when he was asked questions about Hackenberg opening the 2016 season as the team's starter. 

It's laughable to suggest, in that same interview, if the question asked is: "Hey Mike, if Coach Bowles outright benches Fitzpatrick twice, and both Geno and Bryce are on IR, and you haven't picked up another QB, will Christian play?" And you think his answer - right after drafting him, when he was highest on him - would be an unequivocal "NO!!" :rolleyes: It wasn't even an outright "no" when asked if he might be the opening day starter.

Meh. I think when NFL front offices speak publicly, you have to learn to read between the lines. Macc has never said anything publicly about anything to do with a red shirt season. But, if you read between the lines in this interview from last year, it's obvious that he is talking about a red shirt season.

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2016/05/mike_maccagnan_christian_hackenberg_could_play_for.html#incart_river_index

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dbatesman said:

You homos keep honking your puds to the combine, heres the one and only "skills" i care about

At this point, "natural born leader of men" could be branded as white trash viagra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

Can't even quote your own post?  WTF?  I know damn well that I didn't see it, but I wasn't on her much for a while. 

I posted more than a few.  All saying the same thing, plan was to redshirt Hack.  He ignored every single one.  I'm not going to hunt it down so that he can do the same thing months later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gEYno said:

It is a fact that safety is a low value position on comparison to others.  In fact, it was 9th in 2014.  These are indisputable truths.  The fact that you don't really understand how numbers work doesn't change them.

Also, does only acknowledging the Strengths portion of a draft profile work for all players, or just the Jets picks?

Of course it doesn't.  Unless someone tells me that this particular player isn't able to cover.  

The indisputable truth, as of today, is that the Jets picked the best player available.  Why don't you stop wasting time with this nonsense and just say you don't believe in this drafting style and that you would have taken a less talented player simply because you feel that he's playing a more important position.  Because I have no problem saying I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I'm supposed to be working right now, but it appears my services are needed here so here's what I got...

This appears to be the previous thread in question, the bickering begins a little before page 19 but 19-22 is the real meat of what seems to be referenced:

Judging by my extensive research, they had the same argument at that time as in this thread. Sperm, however, provides links and quotes from both management and the coaching staff. Nut, not wanting to concede a very important argument on a very important topic to a stranger on the Internet, posts some links where writers interpret Hackenberg's benching as a plan from the get-go, even though no specifics are referenced in any of the articles aside from the interpretation of the writers.

Gonna have give Sperm the round on this one. It's not a 10-8 round as I guess the Nutter isn't totally making things up, but those links are clearly softcore porn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Alright, I'm supposed to be working right now, but it appears my services are needed here so here's what I got...

This appears to be the previous thread in question, the bickering begins a little before page 19 but 19-22 is the real meat of what seems to be referenced:

Judging by my extensive research, they had the same argument at that time as in this thread. Sperm, however, provides links and quotes from both management and the coaching staff. Nut, not wanting to concede a very important argument on a very important topic to a stranger on the Internet, posts some links where writers interpret Hackenberg's benching as a plan from the get-go, even though no specifics are referenced in any of the articles aside from the interpretation of the writers.

Gonna have give Sperm the round on this one. It's not a 10-8 round as I guess the Nutter isn't totally making things up, but those links are clearly softcore porn.

The ridiculousness is basically this:

One side repeatedly claims the made-up history that Maccagnan said over and over and over, from before camp began, that Hackenberg was never going to see the field as a rookie. It is pure fiction. It never happened, or at least not publicly. Not once, let alone many times.

I read and quoted the man's exact words, repeated earlier in this thread again, in which he wouldn't even rule out starting Hackenberg opening day. He said something quite commonly said of all draftees. In so many words: they'll get him onto the field this summer and see where he's at. If he looks ready, and is the team's best option, then they'll play him. If he looks too unready to use, then they won't.

This is a far, far cry from the allegedly insinuated bull***t of: Absolutely, definitively, and without question, the NY Jets will not put Christian Hackenberg into a regular season football game in 2016, under any circumstances (other than being the only rostered QB who isn't on IR).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kevin L said:

Meh. I think when NFL front offices speak publicly, you have to learn to read between the lines. Macc has never said anything publicly about anything to do with a red shirt season. But, if you read between the lines in this interview from last year, it's obvious that he is talking about a red shirt season.

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2016/05/mike_maccagnan_christian_hackenberg_could_play_for.html#incart_river_index

I did, and I quoted that same article in this thread. A redshirt season is not insinuated or obvious or in between the lines to read. Maccagnan wouldn't rule out starting him opening day as a rookie, and that's even the title of the freaking article that's supposedly evidence to the contrary. 

What does that say for "read[ing] between the lines" when even the reporter, who was there in person to hear it firsthand from the man's mouth, doesn't get the impression you think is so "obvious" in text alone?

Maccagnan said the same thing about Hackenberg that any GM could say about any draftee. Again: if he looks ready they certainly could play him, and if he doesn't look ready they won't. That does not infer an "obvious" redshirt season. 

He didn't play as a rookie because he wasn't good enough to play as a rookie. Why this is such a controversial statement is a mystery to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I did, and I quoted that same article in this thread. A redshirt season is not insinuated or obvious or in between the lines to read. Maccagnan wouldn't rule out starting him opening day as a rookie, and that's even the title of the freaking article that's supposedly evidence to the contrary. 

What does that say for "read[ing] between the lines" when even the reporter, who was there in person to hear it firsthand from the man's mouth, doesn't get the impression you think is so "obvious" in text alone?

Maccagnan said the same thing about Hackenberg that any GM could say about any draftee. Again: if he looks ready they certainly could play him, and if he doesn't look ready they won't. That does not infer an "obvious" redshirt season. 

He didn't play as a rookie because he wasn't good enough to play as a rookie. Why this is such a controversial statement is a mystery to me.

1. Macc never said that Hackenberg might play. Those are the reporters words, not Macc's.

2. It's telling that Macc talked about "maturation processes" and "assimilating the system", instead of "competing for a job" or "earning reps in practice".

3. Based on the reps Hack got last year in training camp and the preseason, it was obvious he wasn't going to see the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...