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

[C Mart]

6. Whether Christian Hackenberg is ready to start in Week 1 is an open question. But the Jets like what he’s done in overhauling his footwork with QB coach Jeremy Bates. He’s not consistent enough yet, but there’s been progress.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/06/29/kansas-city-chiefs-john-dorsey-fired-nfl-notebook

[Fantasy Island]

On 6/28/2017 at 5:37 PM, JiF said:

I was saying what Big Mac would do.  I'm not the GM. 

I wish you were because our GM is a moron.

[ZachEY]

13 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

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.

Wow.  So now "not known for elite coverage skills" or "struggle downfield" is the same as "can't cover?"  Apparently words aren't any more your strong suit than numbers.

I'm going to pass on taking this any further and discussing BAP or reiterating how I've stated Adams himself isn't the problem, because you've got your heels dug in already on multiple points that can't be supported by literally anything factual, and the joke would start to be on me if I suddenly expected a level of comprehension that's demonstratively absent.

[RutgersJetFan]

8 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

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).

Stop yelling at me.

[dbatesman]

The indisputable truth, as of today, is that Jamal Adams is a natural-born leader of men

[Beerfish]

7 hours ago, C Mart said:

6. Whether Christian Hackenberg is ready to start in Week 1 is an open question. But the Jets like what he’s done in overhauling his footwork with QB coach Jeremy Bates. He’s not consistent enough yet, but there’s been progress.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/06/29/kansas-city-chiefs-john-dorsey-fired-nfl-notebook

Good thing we had that very useful red shirt year in which he was stuffed into a closet.

[Jet Nut]

10 hours ago, gEYno said:

Wow.  So now "not known for elite coverage skills" or "struggle downfield" is the same as "can't cover?"  Apparently words aren't any more your strong suit than numbers.

I'm going to pass on taking this any further and discussing BAP or reiterating how I've stated Adams himself isn't the problem, because you've got your heels dug in already on multiple points that can't be supported by literally anything factual, and the joke would start to be on me if I suddenly expected a level of comprehension that's demonstratively absent.

I got it.  Please stop.

[Jet Nut]

23 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.

Nothing to interpret, Bowles also chimed in with a Hack will sit and learn this season.  But hey, that's not true to some.  Carry on

[#bman]

Unless Hack goes 10-6 and plays lights out, Jets are drafting a QB in rd 1 of 2018 draft. They wont make Idziks mistake again. Right now they have no QB's. Even if Hack proves he can be a NFL QB #1 or #2, they still need to find another. Think Brees/Rivers situation.  Chances are Hack will show some potential in 2017 and also show that he's a not a can't miss player. Keep drafting a QB till you find one.

[Sperm Edwards]

22 hours ago, Kevin L said:

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.

1. You said it was obvious, yet it wasn't even obvious to the one hearing it first hand, and that is why the title is relevant. The reason it's not obvious as you (and others) claim is because, when asked about Hackenberg starting, he gave a yeah maybe, maybe not, I don't know, we'll see type answer, that a GM would give for any player he just drafted days before.

2. I quoted the exact words multiple times, but the closest he came to that was in a perfect sitiuation a young QB would be afforded the time to sit an learn. It was plainly obvious, in saying that, he was communicating that the Jets are not in any type of perfect situation because their situation (other than Hackenberg) was Geno Smith, Bryce Petty, and still chasing after Ryan Fitzpatrick whom they hadn't spoken to in a month.

A perfect situation is having a reliable and obvious starting QB, plus another reliable Fitzpatrick type QB as the #2, with both ahead of the rookie. Tampa Bay this year is such a perfect situation to redshirt a rookie QB. The Colts with Luck starting and Hasselbeck backing him up is another. The 2016 Jets (the May 2, 2016 Jets at that) weren't in the same situational galaxy, as they had no obvious starter on that day, and were chasing after another backup QB to start for them.

3. Hackenberg did get reps - I was at one such practice, and lots of other fans were there as well - until it was obvious he was simply wasting the team's practice time. What you are describing is the team dramatically cutting his reps as a result of his stinking, because the goal of the offseason was not to prepare for 16 regular season games of scrimmage practices for Christian Hackenberg, and there's only so much a team is permitted to practice with the maximum times being mandated by the CBA. So, practice is for the receivers and defenders as well; it's not all for rookie Hackenberg even if he's wasting everyone else's time.

At some point earlier-on they simply stopped wasting time because they could plainly see where he was at. It doesn't take equal time all summer long for experienced coaches to see he's nowhere near usable. Regardless, that wasn't draft day or a few days after draft day; that is after he was already on the team and they were preparing for the season.

[Sperm Edwards]

8 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Nothing to interpret, Bowles also chimed in with a Hack will sit and learn this season.  But hey, that's not true to some.  Carry on

No he didn't. Not until September, anyway. Of course, he then went back on that in October when he again let him compete with Petty for the #2 job.

You like to make up events that never happened without showing where/when these people said these phantom things. It should be the easiest thing in the world if each of these team representatives said these things as often as you love to claim. Not a hyperlink to a web page that doesn't even say what you claim it does. Direct and unambiguous quotes, in context. 

The reality is there were no such things said until September. The closest any of them came was Maccagnan's "in a perfect situation" comment, in which he also wouldn't rule out starting him week 1 in the next breath.

[ZachEY]

11 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No he didn't. Not until September, anyway. Of course, he then went back on that in October when he again let him compete with Petty for the #2 job.

You like to make up events that never happened without showing where/when these people said these phantom things. It should be the easiest thing in the world if each of these team representatives said these things as often as you love to claim. Not a hyperlink to a web page that doesn't even say what you claim it does. Direct and unambiguous quotes, in context. 

The reality is there were no such things said until September. The closest any of them came was Maccagnan's "in a perfect situation" comment, in which he also wouldn't rule out starting him week 1 in the next breath.

In fairness, could anyone describe the 2016 Quarterback situation as anything short of "perfect?"

[Kevin L]

27 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

1. You said it was obvious, yet it wasn't even obvious to the one hearing it first hand, and that is why the title is relevant. The reason it's not obvious as you (and others) claim is because, when asked about Hackenberg starting, he gave a yeah maybe, maybe not, I don't know, we'll see type answer, that a GM would give for any player he just drafted days before.

2. I quoted the exact words multiple times, but the closest he came to that was in a perfect sitiuation a young QB would be afforded the time to sit an learn. It was plainly obvious, in saying that, he was communicating that the Jets are not in any type of perfect situation because their situation (other than Hackenberg) was Geno Smith, Bryce Petty, and still chasing after Ryan Fitzpatrick whom they hadn't spoken to in a month.

A perfect situation is having a reliable and obvious starting QB, plus another reliable Fitzpatrick type QB as the #2, with both ahead of the rookie. Tampa Bay this year is such a perfect situation to redshirt a rookie QB. The Colts with Luck starting and Hasselbeck backing him up is another. The 2016 Jets (the May 2, 2016 Jets at that) weren't in the same situational galaxy, as they had no obvious starter on that day, and were chasing after another backup QB to start for them.

3. Hackenberg did get reps - I was at one such practice, and lots of other fans were there as well - until it was obvious he was simply wasting the team's practice time. What you are describing is the team dramatically cutting his reps as a result of his stinking, because the goal of the offseason was not to prepare for 16 regular season games of scrimmage practices for Christian Hackenberg, and there's only so much a team is permitted to practice with the maximum times being mandated by the CBA. So, practice is for the receivers and defenders as well; it's not all for rookie Hackenberg even if he's wasting everyone else's time.

At some point earlier-on they simply stopped wasting time because they could plainly see where he was at. It doesn't take equal time all summer long for experienced coaches to see he's nowhere near usable. Regardless, that wasn't draft day or a few days after draft day; that is after he was already on the team and they were preparing for the season.

Ok, well here's an article from last preseason that states Hack wasn't getting many reps at all. This was heading into the 3rd PS game.

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2016/08/jets_christian_hackenberg_starting_to_get_more_rep.html

Between Macc's comments, Bowles' man crush for Fitz (calling him the starter when he wasn't under contract), the fact that neither Petty or Geno was cut to make room and the lack of meaningful reps in practice, it was pretty obvious (to me at least) that Hack wasn't part of last years plans.

Of course, no one actually used the term redshirt season, so I guess technically you're correct.

[HighPitch]

Im in europe right now. 

Their toilets..... I dont get it. Instead of poop falling into water thus reducing  smell and stickyness, it falls onto the porcelain and slides into water. 

Every time you poop you have to use a brush. 

Why? 

[#27TheDominator]

3 minutes ago, HighPitch said:

Im in europe right now. 

Their toilets..... I dont get it. Instead of poop falling into water thus reducing  smell and stickyness, it falls onto the porcelain and slides into water. 

Every time you poop you have to use a brush. 

Why? 

That sounds like Germany.  It sits, presented on a little shelf!  

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, Kevin L said:

Ok, well here's an article from last preseason that states Hack wasn't getting many reps at all. This was heading into the 3rd PS game.

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2016/08/jets_christian_hackenberg_starting_to_get_more_rep.html

Between Macc's comments, Bowles' man crush for Fitz (calling him the starter when he wasn't under contract), the fact that neither Petty or Geno was cut to make room and the lack of meaningful reps in practice, it was pretty obvious (to me at least) that Hack wasn't part of last years plans.

Of course, no one actually used the term redshirt season, so I guess technically you're correct.

None of this contradicts what I said. I take for granted that, by August 24th, when this was written, they didn't first need to see that he was useless as a rookie. Even in the article itself it notes in the reps that they did give him he was atrocious (2-of-12 and then 5-of-11 with 2 picks by 6th string, soon-to-be-cut Dee Milliner). They could plainly see, before their eyes, that he was unusable as a rookie.

I give Bowles & Gailey enough credit to realize that wasting more of the league-capped practice time with Hackenberg behind center would have shown more of the same from the QB while the rest of the team would get robbed of needed practice reps. Did picking off Hackenberg twice in 1 session allow Milliner secure a place on the final roster? No. 

And the "Macc comments" were that he said pretty plainly - a week shy of 4 months prior to this article - that they'd see where he was at and that would determine how much he plays. There is a vast difference between a GM on May 2nd commenting on the unknown, before Hack's first team workout/practice, and the coaches limiting his reps due to the then-known, weeks and months later, through the time this article was written on August 24th (shortly before the first regular season game).

After that last preseason game, with the first game days away, Bowles then said in September he'll just get a redshirt year (as in future tense, not this was always going to be a redshirt year encompassing past and future, which anyone would have accepted and would have further provided them all cover). Any further reading-into that is people deciding words mean what they want it to mean rather than what they actually mean. Of course, due to the lack of a "perfect situation" Bowles then reversed himself and gave Hack another chance to get un-redshirted when Hack and Petty had a competition for the #2 job.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, gEYno said:

In fairness, could anyone describe the 2016 Quarterback situation as anything short of "perfect?"

lol

Ironically, it was the perfect situation for Hackenberg to start as a rookie for any NFL team:

Carry-over QB situation in disarray, team made no prior arrangements for another veteran, and all he had to do was beat out Geno Smith and Bryce Petty, while throwing to B.Marshall, Decker, a much-improved Enunwa, and what would become a better-than-expected UDFA rookie Anderson. Less than that situation, and the '15 schedule, even made Fitzpatrick look decent for a while.

It would have been a dream come true for the Jets if Hack really showed something in any/all the practice time prior to Fitz re-signing at the very end of July. They'd have looked crazy-smaht for playing it tough with Fitz. Sucky thing is it could have happened, too, if they drafted Prescott in rounds 3 or 4 instead of Hack in round 2 (plus they'd get to draft someone else in round 2 as a nice bonus).

[Skeptable]

19 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

lol

Ironically, it was the perfect situation for Hackenberg to start as a rookie for any NFL team:

Carry-over QB situation in disarray, team made no prior arrangements for another veteran, and all he had to do was beat out Geno Smith and Bryce Petty, while throwing to B.Marshall, Decker, a much-improved Enunwa, and what would become a better-than-expected UDFA rookie Anderson. Less than that situation, and the '15 schedule, even made Fitzpatrick look decent for a while.

It would have been a dream come true for the Jets if Hack really showed something in any/all the practice time prior to Fitz re-signing at the very end of July. They'd have looked crazy-smaht for playing it tough with Fitz. Sucky thing is it could have happened, too, if they drafted Prescott in rounds 3 or 4 instead of Hack in round 2 (plus they'd get to draft someone else in round 2 as a nice bonus).

He will have his shot as a Sophomore, Let's see if he learned something in the off-season... Sounds (Through the Junk Reporting) like he has made some big strides... He has another month and we can see first hand where he really is... I, for one, am very excited to see him play.... But I think a lot will be told in the first preseason game... If Hack shows up, beats out McCown and passes the eye test... The Jets may have a QB.... anything short of that and I think he is doomed for failure...  

[Jet Nut]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No he didn't. Not until September, anyway. Of course, he then went back on that in October when he again let him compete with Petty for the #2 job.

You like to make up events that never happened without showing where/when these people said these phantom things. It should be the easiest thing in the world if each of these team representatives said these things as often as you love to claim. Not a hyperlink to a web page that doesn't even say what you claim it does. Direct and unambiguous quotes, in context. 

The reality is there were no such things said until September. The closest any of them came was Maccagnan's "in a perfect situation" comment, in which he also wouldn't rule out starting him week 1 in the next breath.

Don't tell me I'm making shlt up and like to do it.  

 

[Sperm Edwards]

20 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Don't tell me I'm making shlt up and like to do it.  

 

You dislike doing it but do it anyway?

[Jet Nut]

25 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You dislike doing it but do it anyway?

First of all, I gave you quotes, but you don't get it.  Others told you you were wrong, still you insist.

Want to tell me I'm wrong or you don't agree, fine.  Calling me a liar because you disagree is rude. 

[ZachEY]

28 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You dislike doing it but do it anyway?

Look, SE, while I enjoy reading your posts, I generally think it's prudent to side with the guy who refuses to support his argument, or claims he did before, but refuses to do so now.  So, you're wrong here.  Just accept it.

[thadude]

On June 27, 2017 at 2:07 PM, jeremy2020 said:

I answered your question. He needs to improve enough that they consider listing him as the backup in a game or...*gasp* actually playing him.

What an amazing concept Hack has to actually outplay the other  qb's in practice and preaseason to earn the starting job

[Maxman]

I read this thread, and I can honestly say I have no idea what we are talking about.

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, Maxman said:

I read this thread, and I can honestly say I have no idea what we are talking about.

I just actually had the same thought. 

[RutgersJetFan]

7 minutes ago, Maxman said:

I read this thread, and I can honestly say I have no idea what we are talking about.

 

5 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

I just actually had the same thought. 

I'd explain it to all of you, but I will not. Even though I can. I'm just not gonna.

[#27TheDominator]

25 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Look, SE, while I enjoy reading your posts, I generally think it's prudent to side with the guy who refuses to support his argument, or claims he did before, but refuses to do so now.  So, you're wrong here.  Just accept it.

And he is rude besides!

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Skeptable said:

He will have his shot as a Sophomore, Let's see if he learned something in the off-season... Sounds (Through the Junk Reporting) like he has made some big strides... He has another month and we can see first hand where he really is... I, for one, am very excited to see him play.... But I think a lot will be told in the first preseason game... If Hack shows up, beats out McCown and passes the eye test... The Jets may have a QB.... anything short of that and I think he is doomed for failure...  

Don't confuse anyone's skepticism with knowledge that is in our best interest if he crushes it this year. Or Petty for that matter. I don't give a crap where or with whom we find a successful answer to the QB question. It would thrill me if it was Hackenberg, Petty, or if it came from re-signing Matt Simms for that matter.

[Skeptable]

19 hours ago, Maxman said:

I read this thread, and I can honestly say I have no idea what we are talking about.

 

 

19 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

I just actually had the same thought. 

 

19 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

 

I'd explain it to all of you, but I will not. Even though I can. I'm just not gonna.

The Idea is/was... What would it take for you, as a Jets fan, to consider Hack good enough to be the starter next year... What does he need to show you... whether you quantify that with numbers or what he has to look like... The talks got waylay-ed into another is Hack good or Bad thread but if we can bring it back around that could work too...

[Skeptable]

17 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Don't confuse anyone's skepticism with knowledge that is in our best interest if he crushes it this year. Or Petty for that matter. I don't give a crap where or with whom we find a successful answer to the QB question. It would thrill me if it was Hackenberg, Petty, or if it came from re-signing Matt Simms for that matter.

Well, skepticism is one thing... calling him a failure before he has a chance to play is another... Just like calling Mac's draft bad before they even step on the field is ridiculous ... Just because he didn't follow a formula means he failed.

I am glad it would thrill you and it would thrill me too... The issue I take with the very vocal trolls that waylay every thread around here into how bad Hack is, is a joke... We get it... He sucks because he didn't take a snap last year.. Great... That is an opinion... It is shared by the majority... as well as in the media too.... I am not there yet... I need to see how much he learned in the off-season... How well did he improve... I haven't seen anything yet... but if McCown starts I feel we know the answer at QB is not on this team.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Skeptable said:

Well, skepticism is one thing... calling him a failure before he has a chance to play is another... Just like calling Mac's draft bad before they even step on the field is ridiculous ... Just because he didn't follow a formula means he failed.

I am glad it would thrill you and it would thrill me too... The issue I take with the very vocal trolls that waylay every thread around here into how bad Hack is, is a joke... We get it... He sucks because he didn't take a snap last year.. Great... That is an opinion... It is shared by the majority... as well as in the media too.... I am not there yet... I need to see how much he learned in the off-season... How well did he improve... I haven't seen anything yet... but if McCown starts I feel we know the answer at QB is not on this team.

Well you're making a jump again. It's more like this: I didn't watch him in college but a huge percentage of people - not just those you identify as "trolls" - say he mostly sucked there (even factoring in the crappiness around him). He sucked last year as well, by not even being worthy of earning 3rd string on a team that didn't have a decent QB ahead of him (including the eventual opening day starter who was neither on the roster until the very end of July nor, it seems, in game shape when he got here). 

It's not unreasonable for a player that's previously been sucky to still be considered sucky until he shows he isn't anymore. Just like any other player. Some like to give one player or another some benefit of the doubt by rationalizing past failures - we've all done it - but that doesn't mean the player has a truly clean slate.

[Sperm Edwards]

@Skeptable

Also Macc didn't merely fail to "follow a formula" draft-wise. It's been restated many different ways, but the gist of it (yet again) is he has again taken low value and already-filled positions early, leaving the task of filling high value, harder-to-fill holes with lower (if not outright low) picks and expensive or castoff free agents.

Sure it could work out, but it makes successful completion of the job far more difficult (and in turn, less likely to happen), since those harder-to-fill positions are difficult enough to find when using the draft's top 6 or top 20 or top 50 overall selections. Given the lower success rate of finding starters with later picks, the task then often becomes filling those positions poorly or through paying an extreme premium in free agency (on top of any other niche holes any team naturally fills every year). This doesn't even address the way he's locked up literally nobody earlier in 3 years, paying a further premium there as well.

Instead of drafting expensive positions early with higher percentage picks, and signing lower-priced FAs to fill the others? He drafts low priced (or already-filled) positions, which will leave him to fill holes with the most expensive FA positions (and retain more expensive veterans that might otherwise be expendable), or fill those positions inadequately with said lower picks.

So, Skeptable, the skepticism you seem to find purely reflexive is more of a well thought out stance than the everything will be ok / Macc has a plan one borne of a fan's reflexive desire. Outside of extreme luck, like finding an elite QB and/or edge rusher with late picks, or tanking a season in March/April to try to secure a high draft pick more than a year in advance, the task ahead is far more difficult than the job he's completed.

[Skeptable]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Well you're making a jump again. It's more like this: I didn't watch him in college but a huge percentage of people - not just those you identify as "trolls" - say he mostly sucked there (even factoring in the crappiness around him). He sucked last year as well, by not even being worthy of earning 3rd string on a team that didn't have a decent QB ahead of him (including the eventual opening day starter who was neither on the roster until the very end of July nor, it seems, in game shape when he got here). 

It's not unreasonable for a player that's previously been sucky to still be considered sucky until he shows he isn't anymore. Just like any other player. Some like to give one player or another some benefit of the doubt by rationalizing past failures - we've all done it - but that doesn't mean the player has a truly clean slate.

This is where you make assumptions about me and what I know... I completely disagree with your rational... I will leave it at that and move on, thanks for the discussion but we will not see eye to eye on this.

 

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

@Skeptable

Also Macc didn't merely fail to "follow a formula" draft-wise. It's been restated many different ways, but the gist of it (yet again) is he has again taken low value and already-filled positions early, leaving the task of filling high value, harder-to-fill holes with lower (if not outright low) picks and expensive or castoff free agents.

Sure it could work out, but it makes successful completion of the job far more difficult (and in turn, less likely to happen), since those harder-to-fill positions are difficult enough to find when using the draft's top 6 or top 20 or top 50 overall selections. Given the lower success rate of finding starters with later picks, the task then often becomes filling those positions poorly or through paying an extreme premium in free agency (on top of any other niche holes any team naturally fills every year). This doesn't even address the way he's locked up literally nobody earlier in 3 years, paying a further premium there as well.

Instead of drafting expensive positions early with higher percentage picks, and signing lower-priced FAs to fill the others? He drafts low priced (or already-filled) positions, which will leave him to fill holes with the most expensive FA positions (and retain more expensive veterans that might otherwise be expendable), or fill those positions inadequately with said lower picks.

So, Skeptable, the skepticism you seem to find purely reflexive is more of a well thought out stance than the everything will be ok / Macc has a plan one borne of a fan's reflexive desire. Outside of extreme luck, like finding an elite QB and/or edge rusher with late picks, or tanking a season in March/April to try to secure a high draft pick more than a year in advance, the task ahead is far more difficult than the job he's completed.

Again, I completely disagree with your assumptions that because they were low value positions they will stay low value positions... Cornerback was a low value position and has risen with the need for a good secondary in a passing league... With that the knowledge that a smart quarterback of the backfield is needed at a safety or Cornerback position. 

I won't state anymore because it has been relentlessly argued back and forth on this forum and neither side will seemingly understand the other side... So move on... I am done with this dumb conversation.

In closing I think it is ridiculous to call something a failure before its been tested... You are on the other side... because it hasn't worked and it wasn't working, it will continue to not work, or the chances of it working are far diminished...

Failure Breeds Success.. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, Skeptable said:

This is where you make the assumptions about me and what I know... I completely disagree with your rational... I will leave it at that and move thanks for the discussion but we will not see eye to eye on this.

 

Again, I completely disagree with your assumptions that because they were low value positions they will stay low value positions... Cornerback was a low value position and has risen with the need for a good secondary in a passing league... With that the knowledge that a smart quarterback of the backfield is needed at a safety or Cornerback position. 

I won't state anymore because it has been relentlessly argued back and forth on this forum and neither side will seemingly understand the other side... So move on... I am done with this dumb conversation.

In closing I think it is ridiculous to call something a failure before its been tested... You are on the other side... because it hasn't worked and it wasn't working, it will continue to not work, or the chances of it working are far diminished...

Failure Breeds Success.. 

What assumptions did I make about you, that even mildly approach the way you referred to non-likeminded/non-conforming Jets fans as merely being trolls?

The safety position has always been considered the QB of the backfield (to the degree there is such a thing). This is not some new trend that starts with the Jets. No elite safety is going to suddenly become more valuable than an elite QB, edge rusher, CB, etc. 

When is it you believe CB was last a low value position? It's the value it is now, and has been for a long time, because the game is what it is now: one that has been skewed by new rules to give clear advantages to those with good passing attacks, and in turn, those who can get to the best QBs before he passes or defend the best receivers should that first line of defense fail.

My very point is he's been tested a good amount already, though your reply indicates you simply don't accept it. That he (like Petty) will be tested yet again this year - when the team is obviously tanking - doesn't therefore mean he was not tested before this year. If he passed prior testing he'd have been a higher draft pick, an early starter as a rookie for the Jets, or even a backup that dressed as a rookie. The team is not - and last year was not - limited to seeing only what the fans see on Sundays. 

[Skeptable]

39 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

What assumptions did I make about you, that even mildly approach the way you referred to non-likeminded/non-conforming Jets fans as merely being trolls?

The safety position has always been considered the QB of the backfield (to the degree there is such a thing). This is not some new trend that starts with the Jets. No elite safety is going to suddenly become more valuable than an elite QB, edge rusher, CB, etc. 

When is it you believe CB was last a low value position? It's the value it is now, and has been for a long time, because the game is what it is now: one that has been skewed by new rules to give clear advantages to those with good passing attacks, and in turn, those who can get to the best QBs before he passes or defend the best receivers should that first line of defense fail.

My very point is he's been tested a good amount already, though your reply indicates you simply don't accept it. That he (like Petty) will be tested yet again this year - when the team is obviously tanking - doesn't therefore mean he was not tested before this year. If he passed prior testing he'd have been a higher draft pick, an early starter as a rookie for the Jets, or even a backup that dressed as a rookie. The team is not - and last year was not - limited to seeing only what the fans see on Sundays. 

"mildly approach the way you referred to non-likeminded/non-conforming Jets fans as merely being trolls?" You think you are bucking some trend... You are the majority... The pessimistic view is the only view in Most Jets fans minds right now... 

Elite Safeties are more important then they ever have been in the NFL and teams are moving into this trend whether the fans see it or not...

ok?

ok?

None of this makes you right and me wrong... That is your opinion and I have mine... You say I refuse to accept something that has not been tested... That is true... I refuse to accept it... YOU SAY he has been tested but YOU are making assumptions about what the coaching staff is telling the fans... BUT THEY ARE ASSUMPTIONS... Move on... He hasn't played yet... If he doesn't play this year... You are right it means that he failed... Not playing in his rookie season is not a failure.... Period Stop....