Jets Teammates "Optimistic" on Hackenberg

[NoBowles]

On 12/23/2017 at 1:55 PM, Beerfish said:

Hackenburg pick was 20 times worse than stephan hlll or coples.  No make that 25 time worse!

No QB in the last 25 years who was a 2nd round pick has failed to play in any reg season games after two years.  This is a bust of monumental proportions as in this guy was was so bad he can't beat our petty and the team was forced to go with 35 year old plus jags.

Also the fact that the jets took hack and petty before him helped them not take a QB this last year.

 

How would you compare it to the Paxton Lynch pick who was a round earlier?

[Sperm Edwards]

7 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

In your mindset rookies would never see the field and never get much needed playing experience , why have a draft just use FA to fill the roster with tenured vets. 

The Kerley signing was completely ridiculous and I loved him when he was here the first go round. He's now a marginal receiver with limited skills, those reps would have benefited Hansen/Stewart or anyone else they could have used even if it meant they made an occasional mistake or ran a wrong route. I get it Bowles wants veteran leadership but if he coached better maybe that leadership wouldn't need to get changed every year.

The main role Forte should have had on this team was catching screens and passes out of the backfield , its what he's been good at his whole career , did our mastermind use him that way , no he felt he could trick the league by running him off tackle . And yes he's received way too many carriers especially with Mcguire showing early promise. 

Again , I get Bowles mindset he wants to win with "the safe" player so he's not questioned.  The problem is in today's NFL the safe bet doesn't get you  anywhere look at  Hunt in KC , would he have been getting much run for us , how about Mccafery or Kamara , they would have been fixtures on our bench and according to what you write you would have been ok with that.  Bowles is dyed in the wool of old style pound the rock defense wins championships , its what almost every coach we've had the past decade laid their hats on and frankly I'm sick of it , especially when the NFL is begging teams to throw the ball with the way the rules favor high flying offenses.

Nope. But you're not going to see HCs starting them just for the sake of starting them. You want to see a HC do that, then the GM shouldn't furnish him with superior veterans. His job is to coach the team to wins, not fall on his sword because you want to see rookies get more experience at the team's expense. Think of all the busts and lousy players this GM has furnished him with. You think he's a bad HC now, that's nothing compared to how bad he'd look if he just trotted out an all-youngster team.

The Kerley signing was on the GM. If you don't like it, then point the blame where it belongs. Once he's on the roster, you can't credibly fault the HC for playing him while he's having a terrific season (ditto McCown). You iron out things like route running in practice. Players don't **** up all week long doing it wrong in practice, and then miraculously put it all together when facing opposing defenses that gameplan and have no MoWilks on one side.

Forte didn't have a 10 carry game until November. I don't know how many times this needs to be said for it to sink in.

Bowles - in my opinion - doesn't merely play the safe player; he plays the better player. 

Tell me you honestly believe the OC, QBC, RBC, and receivers coaches all are pushing for the kids to play over the vets, and your take on it is Bowles overrules their better judgment and says to them no no no absolutely no young players see the field on my team unless they're the only ones left that aren't injured. 

It's even more comical that you think Bowles - a glorified DBC - is calling plays on offense, overruling his current or past OC. 

The one who plays it ultra safe is the GM, taking positions like safety and ILB and a DE-DT position that was filled by 3 recent 1st round picks. He's a big fat coffee breath pussy. Both of them need to be fired after this season, before Macc buries another 3 years' worth of FA $ in 1 season to save his own skin in 2018. So if one goes, the other needs to as well (and they've both earned their walking papers anyway).

If he isn't fired in January, the earliest chance the Jets have at a SB will be the 2021 season. Bad coaches can get there with superior teams; bad rosters cannot get there no matter who's coaching them.

[CanadaSteve]

On 12/23/2017 at 11:06 AM, Sperm Edwards said:

This, 100%.

There are plenty of players who cash in big and continue to play well (and continue to dominate, if they had that potential to begin with). Eventually some players just can't do it anymore, but that doesn't mean it's from a lack of effort.

Like Bart Scott, who got a mammoth contract from us and, while he wasn't an elite player, it wasn't due to lack of motor or effort. Or Damien Woody, who got a contract that was (at the time) said to be grossly overpaying for a 30+ guy whose star had fallen, and who only came on again for the last half season at RT with Detroit. He'd then become - for a couple of years - one of the best RTs in football for the Jets after getting paid (actually after getting paid a 2nd time), despite only arriving here in his age 31 season. Plenty of other examples, but to your point it's all the player's attitude. Mo didn't suddenly become incapable of playing football at even an average level on the day he signed his contract. On the other side of that coin, a player like Harrison didn't stop being an elite interior defender, nor did he start being a lazy douche, after the Giants paid him.

Some guys need incentive to push them (in Mo's case, it would seem future big money he doesn't yet have), where others like Snacks can be self-motivated just because they want to be the best they can be no matter what the situation. Those in the latter group are the players who love the game, who realize it's a young man's sport and they won't be young enough to do it forever; that in the blink of an eye it'll all be over, and they want to know they always gave their best while they had the chance.

One isn't necessarily better than the other as a person outside of football - far from it - but one is clearly better for teams while there's a salary cap and roster limit that magnifies a team's investment wisdom and mistakes. It's the job of a GM and HC to identify which is which, and make a judgment call.

If Mo had to be spoken to with a, "Now if we give you this contract you have to promise you'll be more of a leader by example," then he's the type they shouldn't have handed such a contract to in the first place (I didn't think he was worth that $ anyway, but that's a separate discussion). But while it's no less damaging for a new, incoming FA, it's less forgivable when it's a player they had and knew personally. 

I would also think another 'red flag' for GM's and HC's is when guys start talking early in the process about how they will not give a hometown discount, or that they want to be paid.  When someone starts saying those things in public, especially early in the process, I would think it would raise a red flag about their desire and commitment to winning rather than just getting the big pay day.