Jump to content

If Hack plays vs Oakland


How do you think Hack will look if he plays against Oakland?  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you think Hack will look if he plays against Oakland?

    • Completely lost...embarassing
    • Below average
    • Average
    • Above Average
      0
    • He'll look great and silence the critics


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Bad. No wait, good! No hold on, bad!

If hack is the backup then everyone on the coaching staff and front office should be beaten severely

looks like 25 SOJFs versus 5 of us REAL FANS

Posted Images

28 minutes ago, gEYno said:

74 SOJF VS 9 REAL FANZ.  GEEZ, YOU PEOPLE DESERVE THIS TEAM AND THIS SEASON.

HACK WILL THROW ALL THE TOUCHDOWNS!  HAVE YOU EVEN HEARD OF JAMES FRANCO OR KNOW ABOUT HIS MECHANICS?

It's like the 300 Spartans versus the tyrant Persians. The real fanz will win 

HACK 1-0 457 PASSING YDS 4 TDS 21 RUSHING YDS. CLUTCH FRANCHISE QB

  • Post of the Week 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AFJF said:

Yup.  As much as I've advocated for Petty (and I still do), just watching how fast Buffalo's defense looked the other day, sometimes it takes going from pre-season to remember how much faster things get when the real games start.

Petty would struggle, but he'd still be a much better option than Hack and mat not be much more of a dropoff from McCown.

i get the point.  but there is always the possibility that the oline plays very well and mccown still doesn't move the ball.  what then? imo there's nothing to be lost by putting in petty or hack no matter what the score.  presumably the jets will be down if mccown can't put points on the board by halftime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2017 at 3:23 PM, gEYno said:

looks like 25 SOJFs versus 5 of us REAL FANS

By 'real' you mean delusional right? Hackenberg will be as lost as a babe in the woods. In fact, if Bowles plays him against the Raiders it will be as bad as starting Everett McIver against Bruce Smith. Ask Boomer Esiason how that worked out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some people who seem determined to declare  Petty's ceiling is at best, NFL backup.  They don't state it as opinion, but fact as if it's indisputable.

There are some people who seem convinced that Hack's ceiling is burger flipper.  Same as above.  No room for debate.

Personally, my opinion is Petty is more ready to play and might even have a higher ceiling but I'll freely admit I don't know.  

The difference here is, I am anxious to find out and that means one of them has to play.  Perhaps not this week, but soon.  

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, long suffering jets fan said:

Well a lot depends on the OL, WRs and RBs.  If those 3 elements played spectacular, then he could have a good day.  What is my level of confidence that will happen with a new offense,  and weakness in all those areas against one of the best defenses in the NFL?  Close to nil.  It's a team fellas, you give Hack a dominating running game and wide open receivers and a clean pocket and he can look decent.  Hack won't start till the Jacksonville, or Browns game.

Lots of people here agree with you 100%.

You give Hackenberg all that then he can look decent. So he might possibly look merely decent, under conditions that essentially amount to the opponent not putting a defense on the field at all. Do I have this Freudian Slip correct?

Of course, if you give any legitimate (or even borderline) #2 NFL QB all that, then he'll look like the best QB in the league for a week. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, rangerous said:

not for nothing but goff looked like dog doo during his few starts last season but on sunday he lit it up.  i'm not saying that hack will have a similar turnaround but as he practices more and sees the game more he should do better.  i think there should have been a caveat in the selections.  do they relate to an average qb or to hack specifically? and, frankly, the way the rest of the offense has been playing they would make the best qb look very average.

Let's see...what did the Rams do to help Mr Goff...offensive minded head coach known for developing QBs, signed best FA left tackle, trade for Sammy Watkins, drafterd Cooper Koup in 3rd round, Gerald Everett in the 2nd round along with other moves. They did everyting they good to support their QB who looked at least as clueless as Hack last year. QB performance is not all about ability, it is about coaching, and the surrounding players. Hack would look completely different behind Dalls line and with their playmakers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2017 at 2:39 PM, Rangers9 said:

You can't win in Oakland with a super conservative offense which is the level Hack is on. It was conservative in Buffalo but you're hoping with new players and a Qb who didn't play much until last Sunday they will be more ready to open it up. Again the regular season isn't for tryouts. You play the Qb who gives you the best chance to win. If they lose with McCown then I can see going to Petty and later to Hack. But I give McCown at least the first four starts. 

Jets are going to lose anyway, they should just go with the QB who gives them the best chance to lose with some shred of dignity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Freemanm said:

Jets are going to lose anyway, they should just go with the QB who gives them the best chance to lose with some shred of dignity. 

This is no guaranteed L. If so don't play the game. McCown gives the Jets our best chance to win. I just think we'll have to  open it up more on Sunday to have a chance. Later in the season if the Jets think Hack is ready to play then maybe give him a few starts. But only if we are completely out of it. Same goes for Petty who actually looked ok when he played in pre-season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, johnnysd said:

Let's see...what did the Rams do to help Mr Goff...offensive minded head coach known for developing QBs, signed best FA left tackle, trade for Sammy Watkins, drafterd Cooper Koup in 3rd round, Gerald Everett in the 2nd round along with other moves. They did everyting they good to support their QB who looked at least as clueless as Hack last year. QB performance is not all about ability, it is about coaching, and the surrounding players. Hack would look completely different behind Dalls line and with their playmakers.

i agree and that's why i phrased the answer the way i did. would hack look average?  for hack? or for an nfl qb? hack will look much better if and when the oline gets sorted out .  and it also shows how a highly rated qb prospect does better after some game experience.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is no guaranteed L. If so don't play the game. McCown gives the Jets our best chance to win. I just think we'll have to  open it up more on Sunday to have a chance. Later in the season if the Jets think Hack is ready to play then maybe give him a few starts. But only if we are completely out of it. Same goes for Petty who actually looked ok when he played in pre-season. 


We will lose badly ... but the effort is what i am looking for.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

 


We will lose badly ... but the effort is what i am looking for.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

Hopefully its not U-G-L-Y if it is I am turning off my computer and not adding anything to the game day thread after the game is over, if they win I will be here to celebrate the victory! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 0:48 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

Lots of people here agree with you 100%.

You give Hackenberg all that then he can look decent. So he might possibly look merely decent, under conditions that essentially amount to the opponent not putting a defense on the field at all. Do I have this Freudian Slip correct?

Of course, if you give any legitimate (or even borderline) #2 NFL QB all that, then he'll look like the best QB in the league for a week. 

No argument and I would say that the opposite is true as well.  You take a very good QB and you put him behind a crappy OL, with no running game and bad receivers.  He tries to force something/anything to happen and ends up looking bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, long suffering jets fan said:

No argument and I would say that the opposite is true as well.  You take a very good QB and you put him behind a crappy OL, with no running game and bad receivers.  He tries to force something/anything to happen and ends up looking bad.

What I was saying is your post is inadvertently an indictment of Hackenberg, rather than a supportive one.

The circumstances you outlined shouldn't be a can/could/might/maybe scenario for him to look merely dec3nt; it would lead to a 100% sure thing to look downright awesome for any backup QB, or frankly anybody who can throw a football on target.

In equal or less favorable situations than you outlined, even backups look like great QBs: Matt Flynn threw 6 TDs in a game, Geno Smith put up a perfect QB rating, etc. In other words, all-world success in such conditions is meaningless, and you still only attached a "can look decent" upside for Hack.

;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

What I was saying is your post is inadvertently an indictment of Hackenberg, rather than a supportive one.

The circumstances you outlined shouldn't be a can/could/might/maybe scenario for him to look merely dec3nt; it would lead to a 100% sure thing to look downright awesome for any backup QB, or frankly anybody who can throw a football on target.

In equal or less favorable situations than you outlined, even backups look like great QBs: Matt Flynn threw 6 TDs in a game, Geno Smith put up a perfect QB rating, etc. In other words, all-world success in such conditions is meaningless, and you still only attached a "can look decent" upside for Hack.

;) 

It wasn't inadvertent.  I was indicting him.  He's a young QB with some things to work out that may never get fixed even in the best of conditions.  And "looking decent" for a 22 year old kid with flawed mechanics and little NFL experience is all we could ever hope for at this stage of the game, but unless our team starts go gel and provides our QBs with some semblance of protection, a running, or passing game he'll never look decent and can never develop further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, long suffering jets fan said:

It wasn't inadvertent.  I was indicting him.  He's a young QB with some things to work out that may never get fixed even in the best of conditions.  And "looking decent" for a 22 year old kid with flawed mechanics and little NFL experience is all we could ever hope for at this stage of the game, but unless our team starts go gel and provides our QBs with some semblance of protection, a running, or passing game he'll never look decent and can never develop further.

Agree to disagree if you like. I think "all we could ever hope for at this stage of the game" is a good amount higher than that. Plenty of QBs - including those drafted far lower than Hack - have flawed mechanics on draft day and still go on to show something as rookies (some even right away as rookies).

He's now in his 2nd NFL season and the only reason he even seems to be worthy of the #3 spot (behind Josh McCown and Bryce Petty FFS) is because there isn't a 3rd QB at the level of the lesser of McCown or Petty, which would again bump him down to 4th string. Whatever perceived hardships he encountered in the past, that still qualifies as lower than "all we could ever hope for" right now. Many people, including the man who irrationally obsessed over him on draft day, hoped for far better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 12:48 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

Lots of people here agree with you 100%.

You give Hackenberg all that then he can look decent. So he might possibly look merely decent, under conditions that essentially amount to the opponent not putting a defense on the field at all. Do I have this Freudian Slip correct?

Of course, if you give any legitimate (or even borderline) #2 NFL QB all that, then he'll look like the best QB in the league for a week. 

So if I am getting your strategy on QB identification, your idea is to put a QB in the worst imaginable situation, and only if they look like a top 2 NFL QB, in that terrible situation, do you have something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

So if I am getting your strategy on QB identification, your idea is to put a QB in the worst imaginable situation, and only if they look like a top 2 NFL QB, in that terrible situation, do you have something?

I see in your time off your discussion skills have not evolved over straw man arguments that have no bearing on what was actually said.

It's clear your current stay here will be as long and rewarding as all your other ones. Enjoy your week at JetNation, friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

I see in your time off your discussion skills have not evolved over straw man arguments that have no bearing on what was actually said.

It's clear your current stay here will be as long and rewarding as all your other ones.

Actually, I am in complete agreement with your original stance. I just like to take opposing sides to work out key questions. Like sharpening a knife.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...