Jump to content

Apparently we didn’t need to “see what we have” in Hackenberg...


ZachEY

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 minutes ago, Snell41 said:

So Bowles took a sh*t ton of flack over not playing Petty and Hack to see what we had. I think it’s time to give him some credit, because he was right. neither one deserve to be on an NFL field


Yup.

I'm just mocking the notion that us, the fans, needed to see him on the field to know this would happen.  As if the entire coaching staff and front office couldn't tell this was who he was based on practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Snell41 said:

So Bowles took a sh*t ton of flack over not playing Petty and Hack to see what we had. I think it’s time to give him some credit, because he was right. neither one deserve to be on an NFL field


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We all know he's terrible. The issue is the downside of not playing him is paying through the nose for Darnold instead of simply getting the higher pick and keeping those other draft picks instead. There was no upside to winning 5 games with McCown over winning 2-3 with Petty/Hackenberg. They weren't going to the playoffs either way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Snell41 said:

So Bowles took a sh*t ton of flack over not playing Petty and Hack to see what we had. I think it’s time to give him some credit, because he was right. neither one deserve to be on an NFL field


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bugg said:

We all know he's terrible. The issue is the downside of not playing him is paying through the nose for Darnold instead of simply getting the higher pick and keeping those other draft picks instead. There was no upside to winning 5 games with McCown over winning 2-3 with Petty/Hackenberg. They weren't going to the playoffs either way. 

To be fair you have to consider the other guys on the team. If you play a qb that obviously doesn’t belong you might have a mutiny on your hands. It’s one thing to let a young guy with potential go through growing pains, but letting a stiff like Hack go out there just wouldn’t fly. Like some of the coaches said this ain’t triple a it’s the majors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of us knew he was horrendous from day one, me being one of his biggest critic still feel bowles was an assh*t for not giving the guy ONE REG SEASON SNAP when petty was also god awful.  If he was that bad then he should never have been on the roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bugg said:

We all know he's terrible. The issue is the downside of not playing him is paying through the nose for Darnold instead of simply getting the higher pick and keeping those other draft picks instead. There was no upside to winning 5 games with McCown over winning 2-3 with Petty/Hackenberg. They weren't going to the playoffs either way. 

Can you really run a guy out there that makes Mark Sanchez look like Fort Knox with the football?

Hackenberg would turn the ball over at least 4X per game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee... Ya think?

Hackenberg isn't good enough to even  be a training camp arm in whatever XFL crap league is being worked up.

He. F*cking. Sucks.

And the next poster that uses the word "develop" in a paragraph even in the vicinity of Hackenberg's name should be banned for life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RoadFan said:

Gee... Ya think?

Hackenberg isn't good enough to even  be a training camp arm in whatever XFL crap league is being worked up.

He. F*cking. Sucks.

And the next poster that uses the word "develop" in a paragraph even in the vicinity of Hackenberg's name should be banned for life.

Mods - do your duty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Snell41 said:

So Bowles took a sh*t ton of flack over not playing Petty and Hack to see what we had. I think it’s time to give him some credit, because he was right. neither one deserve to be on an NFL field


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's almost as if bowles got to see hack in practice everyday and knew that he wasn't competent....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Yup.

I'm just mocking the notion that us, the fans, needed to see him on the field to know this would happen.  As if the entire coaching staff and front office couldn't tell this was who he was based on practice.

NOT ALL FANS...

We saw him suck at Penn State.  We saw him suck in the preseason. We heard about him sucking in practice from players and coaches alike.  Only idiots "needed to see him play."

Logical fans had all the facts they needed.  Only faith fans needed more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Bugg said:

We all know he's terrible. The issue is the downside of not playing him is paying through the nose for Darnold instead of simply getting the higher pick and keeping those other draft picks instead. There was no upside to winning 5 games with McCown over winning 2-3 with Petty/Hackenberg. They weren't going to the playoffs either way. 

In theory you are, of course, correct.

But, a head coach generally can’t afford to think this way. If Bowles went 1-15 with hack/petty last year, he would have almost certainly been fired. This is always the practical problem with tanking arguments, in general.

If your team has no chance of competing for a SB, it may very well be in the best longterm interest of the organization to tank, but it is virtually never in the best interest of the current coach/GM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, docdhc said:

To be fair you have to consider the other guys on the team. If you play a qb that obviously doesn’t belong you might have a mutiny on your hands. It’s one thing to let a young guy with potential go through growing pains, but letting a stiff like Hack go out there just wouldn’t fly. Like some of the coaches said this ain’t triple a it’s the majors. 

I get that. But again the 2017 Jets were gonna suck either way. 2  or 3 extra wins was pointless. I understand any coach is going to play the QB that gives him the best chance to win and under the Jets' spaghetti command structure the coach and not the GM makes the decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RoadFan said:

NOT ALL FANS...

We saw him suck at Penn State.  We saw him suck in the preseason. We heard about him sucking in practice from players and coaches alike.  Only idiots "needed to see him play."

Logical fans had all the facts they needed.  Only faith fans needed more.

But MACC knows best.  I think MACC has shown he couldn't draft talent until it falls in his lap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bugg said:

I get that. But again the 2017 Jets were gonna suck either way. 2  or 3 extra wins was pointless. I understand any coach is going to play the QB that gives him the best chance to win and under the Jets' spaghetti command structure the coach and not the GM makes the decision. 

But the NFL doesn't work like that as mentioned.  Hack simply lacked the basic competency to play the QB position. It's obvious that everyone in the organization saw that: the coaches, the players and the FO.  Its like any other position on the team.  If you had a K who couldn't kick, you don't send him out there in order to intentionally lose games.  Starting Hack would solely be for the purpose of losing games, which no team would ever do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Jamarcus Russell beat a Brett Favre led Jets team head to head and was also a main reason the Jets made the playoffs in 2009.

It is a fascinating question.  Russell sucked, but he met the basic competency level to start.  Hackenberg is essentially the equivalent of a hockey player who can't skate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...