I think that you're right that we're talking past each other a little. My point was that he was phenomenal in his freshman season when one looks at the mental aspects of his game, which imo, is the hardest and most important aspect of QB play. Even though his stats weren't the greatest even his freshman year, for a freshman starting at a major college and learning a complex NFL-style offense, I think they were good enough, that his play can be considered to be phenomenal overall. Technique and fundamentals flaws are often not corrected in high school or college. This is due to many coaches not being that knowledgeable in terms of correct fundamentals and techniques, but also to the fact that many coaches don't want to mess with players who are already playing at a high level because they're afraid of making them think too much and thus not playing freely and naturally, and perhaps not at as high a level. With this being the case, with Hack not being a good fit in the Pistol-style offense, with the OL being complete shit his soph. and jr. seasons, with little receiving talent, with slow developing plays (which combined with the awful OL are a recipe for disaster) and with clueless OCs and HC, how was he supposed to overcome all of that and put up great numbers. I'm not sure any of the great QBs would have been able to over come that. Perhaps Peyton Manning, Favre, Rodgers, Luck, and a small handful of others might have, but we'll never know. Brady wasn't even that good in college, so I know he wouldn't have. I doubt Mariota, Bortles, Teddy, or Winston would have, either. In Hack's case, it seems that the OCs his sophomore and junior seasons were idiots. He already had pretty sound fundamentals in terms of footwork and they totally screwed with those. Just as importantly, when he started taking a pounding due to the horrible OL play and his fundamentals started eroding, they did nothing to help him, either because they don't have a clue, were afraid they'd make him too self conscious, or just gave up on him because he couldn't immediately do things the way they wanted him to. Lots of football coaches are like that. Their ego and pride gets in the way, and/or they blame it on the player, when they don't know how to help the player. I agree that it's justifiable to have concerns, questions or be upset with the pick. Again, I think there are sufficient reasons for those concerns without adding hyperbole to the mix. I'm glad to hear that you're not rooting against him, and I hope that you are rooting for him, since that will be what is best for the Jets and all of us.
You're right that until he shows us something, it's just potential. You're also right that he might not work out, but I like his chances. I agree that I think he can thrive here. I think Mac has to do more with the OL, however, in order for Hack to get over whatever heebie jeebies he has about OL protection. I think the thing that feels different is probably coming from one of two things (or possibly both). One, we seem to have a thoroughly professional, prepared, intelligent GM. He thoroughly vetted Hack. I know that gives me confidence and trust in Mac's decision to draft Hack and in Hack himself. Two, Hack is very smart, has a high football IQ, can already read Ds, and yet he has prototypical size and a cannon for an arm. Seemingly, he just needs to get his footwork straightened out (and he's already made strides in that direction), perhaps some tinkering with his throwing motion (if he does have a hitch), and those two things along with reps, and a solid OL should help restore his confidence and help him get over the pounding he took at PSU. Based on his history, he should learn our offense pretty quickly, and I would think that he would adapt to the speed of the NFL somewhat quickly as well.
To begin with, as I've said countless times in this thread, I didn't like Hack before the draft and didn't want him, so my comments are not based on the fact that I liked him and wanted him to become a Jet. Since he was chosen, I've watched a lot of film, read a number of articles and feel much better about the choice, and can totally understand why Mac took him. Plain and simple the Jets need a franchise QB, or at least a young quality starter. Picking where the Jets will be picking for the foreseeable future, they are not gonna have a shot at ANY of the top QB prospects unless they trade the ranch to move up, and we know how seldom those trade ups work out. Even if the QB pans out, usually the rest of the team around the QB suffers. Thus, how else are the Jets supposed to get a talented QB? Hack has undeniable talent. He has a very high football IQ. He already can read Ds and make adjustments at the line. He knows how to call protections and run a huddle. He isn't coming from a spread offense. He's already run a complex NFL-style offense. He's poised. He has prototypical size and a cannon for an arm. Name me another QB outside of Goff or Wentz in this draft that had all those qualities. You can't, and Goff doesn't have the arm Hack has. IMO in retrospect, he was totally worth the risk, even if it was a bit of a reach. As another poster said, I'd be willing to bet that NE would have taken him with their 2nd round pick, especially since he basically already knew their offense. I think you're also wrong that no one is praising the pick, unless you're speaking only of the media. Gruden thought Hack should go in the 1st round. I've seen a number of posters on here that have praised the pick, just as I am now. Teams don't achieve greatness without risk. There is almost always risk involved at some point in the process of building a championship team. Teams who are afraid of risk and play it safe seldom become champions. That doesn't mean one should be reckless and/or take foolhardy, unnecessary risks, but that's not what Mac did. He thoroughly vetted Hack. Kudos to you for hoping that you are wrong. I understand why you think the pick was a reach. My point was that we fans tend to look at things myopically and in the short term. We have neither the experience, nor knowledge that the GM or scouts have, we haven't worked the prospects out on the field or on a whiteboard, we haven't spoken with them, their former coaches, etc. Hack didn't suck his freshman year in an NFL-style offense. He only sucked once he got an incompetent OC and HC and they screwed with his footwork, a suck ass OL, no quality WRs, and a rinky-dink pistol offense. As fans, I think that we need to focus on his play his freshman year and basically forget the last two years. Brady didn't suck in college, but he sure wasn't a star, either. I'm not sure how good Warren Moon was in college, but he had to play in the CFL before he could in the NFL, but that may have been due to racism rather than his play in college. I'm sure there have been others. To be able to fully answer your question, I'd have to know the history of every franchise QB in the history of the NFL, and I doubt if anyone knows that.
I think his ceiling depends upon his accuracy. If 90% or more of his accuracy issues were due to poor footwork, hitch in his throwing motion, loss of confidence, and the constant pressure (never knowing when he was going to take a crushing blindside hit), then I think his ceiling may be a lot closer to Brady and Peyton Manning. If that percentage falls to 60-70% however, I think his ceiling is probably more Ryan, Eli Manning or Stafford. Even if that is his ceiling, with the Jets' D, that should be plenty good to make them perennial playoff contenders, if not contenders for the Lombardi Trophy, and that will be more than any QB we've had other than Kenny O'Brien or Joe Namath.
Been watching some of his 2014 games. His footwork was not that bad aside from occasionally being lazy with it. The team was undermanned for the most part and he tried to play hero ball and force things. In 2015, he took less risks and threw the ball away more.
this is what happens when you only look up comp% and INT numbers with no context. both played in different eras than today. Namath won the National Championship in college, and was one of the most sought after recruits to enter the draft. both the AFL and NFL drafted him, and fought to get him into their respective leagues. there was no doubt about his skill. Moon had to battle the notion that blacks weren't good QB's his entire career, including college. He absolutely tore it up in junior college before being given a shot with Washington, where he won the Rose Bowl. He again was snubbed by the NFL, having to prove himself first in the CFL, but it had nothing to do with his college production. they were very productive, very talented college QB's. i don't think i've ever heard it suggested otherwise.
The real key piece here that nobody talks about at all would be Kevin Patullo, the QB coach. I think Fitzpatrick has his best shot here in NY for a few reasons - and one of the key reasons is the presence of Kevin. Chan/Kevin/Amish Rifle worked together for a few number of years, starting from the Buffalo days. [Which was one of the reasons, I think, why the offense was in sync last season despite the fact that Fitzpatrick never saw any of his OL members or receivers before.] Now - Kevin's got a job cut out for him. My impression of Hack is - he is actually a very good prospect that his college coaches fucked up with. His first lesson here in NY would be to un-learn all the bad shit he picked up during Franklin disaster. [It takes quite a while to do so.] It will all depend on how Kevin is at 1. communicating and 2. setting up the fundamental parts. As for the prospect goes, Hack is indeed very good. 58.9% completion ratio, 2955 yards and 20 TD/10 INTs in 12 games is indeed pretty good. If he carried on with that, he could easily eclipse 10k yards/50 TD/60% completion mark [that most 1st round QBs post up] If his 2013 campaign is any indication, [and that Kevin Patullo is good enough of a QB coach] then it's not hard to see that the accuracy woes are actually blown out of proportion.
ThanKS for the history lesson it was fun, I was fully aware of it all, still... So, winning a national championship means your a good college QB now adays? That's weird... Last I checked, that usually means the team was better than abother team, I don't think it means a thing in regards to how good the QB was in college. If you look at the stats, of you look at the games, there is a reason they struggled. How are you going to tell me a guy with a 48.8 comp % was good in college?
Using completion ratio to judge the performance of the QBs of the past is dumb to begin with. That practice came in vogue in 1980's when Walsh started this thing called WCO and stormed the league with it.
Someone made a claim earlier in this thread that no bad QB'S in college ever became good NFL Qb's in the history of football. I gave a few examples. Thanks for your insight though. I guess? He wasn't a good QB in college no matter how you slice it, look at the numbers, look at the games, look at his journey to eventually become a good QB.. Doesn't matter, the fact is, the Fucking guy wasn't a good college QB. That's all I'm saying.
you do realize Namath was a top national prospect coming out of college right? do you think that would be the case if he was not good? jeez use some common sense.... comp % from the 60's means little today, and you are using that as a basis of modern comparison. you are so off base here it's not even worth arguing further. fwiw, you had a point in some avg to poor college QB's becoming good in the pro's. these 2 examples just weren't very good.
Good stuff. LI gotta say I am a little bit pumped. Don't get all these "experts" on the blog. I know what I do not know.
You do realize the skill gap from that generation, the way the game was played in that era, and the popularity tug of war back then all played into that. Namath was a huge personality back then, he would sell and he would help to win the popular vote. If you think it was because of his "amazing" QB play, it wasn't. He was an ok QB in college, at best. There have been many QB'S who have been highly sought after even though they just weren't all that great in college. Doesn't mean they were worthy, nor does it mean Namath was worthy of that on skill alone. This is also just one example I made, so your comp % argument based on the Era back then doesn't hold any weight. I also gave Moon early-mid 70s Brady 2ks.. They weren't good college QB'S and I wasn't basing my entire opinion of that off of just two stat lines. It was just a single reference to why they were bad/ok in college.
We will see but hopefully not for the next 3 years. Maccagnan gambled and his rep is on the line with this pick. If either Lynch or Cook play well the NY media and fans will be screaming.
Why does everyone keep saying this? He used a late 2nd round pick on a potential franchise QB. Its not like he traded away his entire draft to move up to a top 3 position like LA and Philly did. If Hack doesn't work out, would you call him a failure and make a "FIRE MAC" billboard???
It's their way of saying [I DO NOT LIKE THIS PICK! I DO NOT LIKE THIS PICK! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!]
This is true. All the more reason Mac needs to make sure Hack is handled properly. And yet.... ...not gonna lie, if Fitz doesn't sign, I'm pulling for Hack to win the starting spot. If he truly has the football intelligence that some think he does, he'd really just need to work out the mechanical issues. Based on reports of his work ethic, he could probably take care of that in no time.
