The only thing I was "lecturing you" on was giving up on a player after one year and calling him a bust, particularly when everyone knew that he was going to be a multi-year project. It's fine to say what we'd like to see happen. We all do that. It's part of being a fan and what makes sites like this interesting and fun. I didn't claim to know more than you. The point is that NONE of us fans know more than the GM and/or CS. None of us are "experts." They can be wrong, but they have a lot more information and facts than we can ever hope to have. I realize why we're all here engaging in debate. I've been posting on Jets sites since the late '90s. I enjoy the discussions, dialogue and have learned a lot.
Save the lecture. Again, I agree that Macc - and most GMs - wouldn't pull the plug on a pet project after only one year. But I also know that the saying "Don't throw good money after bad" is usually true. Obviously, if Macc and Bowles think that Hack can be the Second Coming of Tom Brady, they should keep him. And maybe it makes more sense to cut Petty instead of Hack, if they did take Watson, to go along with a vet. That's probably the only way that Macc would take Watson, so I would be okay with that. But I doubt he's going to take any QB this year for reasons I've already given. I normally appreciate our exchanges, as they're usually free from the condescension and insults that some others engage in, but when i feel like you're speaking down to me, I'm going to object.
That's fair. My intent wasn't "condescension" or insults. I'm sorry if that's how it came across to you. I think you've been a good addition to the site, are a knowledgeable poster, and I enjoy our discussions. That's why I was surprised that you were calling Hack a bust. I understand not wanting Hack in the first place or disagreeing with the pick afterwards, but imo it's ridiculous to call a player who is known to be a multi-year project when drafted a bust after his first season, especially when the very thing that makes him a "project" hasn't even been addressed yet.
Perhaps you could look at it this way: I'm not calling him a bust, per se, but a casualty of rebuilding. If the Jets already had their FQB, let's say they sign a vet who really takes off for them, they could afford to carry Hack as a long term project to hopefully take over for the vet in a couple of years when he's blossomed. But they don't have their FQB, and he certainly isn't ready to become one, if he ever will be, so he's simply excess baggage, taking up roster and cap space. See the difference? I'm not saying he's a "bust", just that he doesn't fit in what I hope would be the Jets plan for the immediate future.
When did everyone agree Hack was a "multi-year" project? Hack is NOT a Petty or Geno situation. Aside from his mechanics issues, it can be argued that he was one of the most pro-ready QBs in his draft. He's already played and had success in an NFL offense coached by a NFL coach as a freshman. A full regular and 2 off seasons is plenty enough time for him to have regained his form and shed those bad habits he developed under poor coaching and offensive line play. The Jets have to see some dividends this upcoming season or else it's time start exploring other options. They probably should start now as at the end of the day he was only a 2nd round pick. I get the redshirt year but anything more is coddling as though he was a top 10 pick. Let's not repeat the mistakes we did with Geno.
By "multi-year" I meant two years, not more. Changing fundamentals can be difficult. As you know many QBs are not able to do it by the time they get to the NFL. I think he would have been ready to compete for the starting job this season if they had worked with him all season on his fundamentals, but with their not even beginning work with him on that until the season was over, that's a lot more in doubt imo. He may still be ready, and I hope he is, but I wouldn't bet on it. Even with a lot of focused hard work, it might be mid-season or later before he could play effectively. He's still only be 22 at the oldest.
Honestly, how can a supposed NFL level QB - hell, for that matter, even a Div. I QB - get to that point being so screwed up on his basic fundamentals? I mean, a Mahomes who they say has poor fundamentals, but who somehow thrives in spite - because? - of them, okay. But a QB who has gotten to Penn State and then "lost" it all, what the hell did Macc see in him? (Rhetorical question). Frankly I don't see him ever succeeding with that track record, but then again, I'm not a GM.
I don't know, because I didn't see him play in high school. All I've seen is video of his freshman year at PSU and then subsequent years. Based on that, it appears to me that his fundamentals/footwork needed work even then, but O'Brien was more interested in winning than getting Hack prepared for the NFL. He thought he could win with him, and he did. Then Franklin came in, and totally changed the footwork to the exact opposite of what Hack had been doing. That messes with your mind and confidence. You have to think too much. You want to please your coach and do things the way he wants, but it's hard because it takes a ton of focused reps to change those fundamentals to where they happen naturally without your having to think about them. Natural instincts or habit can take over under pressure. To his credit, he was pretty much able to change his fundamentals to suit Franklin, but I think he never felt comfortable or confident with the different way of doing things. The situation wasn't helped by PSU's awful OL or lack or weapons around him his last two years, either. I think the thing that probably sold Mac on Hack was his abilities to read Ds and go through his progressions and was running an NFL-style offense at 18 years of age. It didn't hurt that he has great character, is a leader, has prototypical size and a strong arm, either.
I think saying Hack will never succeed is a bit hyperbolic. However, he does strike me as a player that needs too many things to go right in order to have success. Meaning his mechanics has to be perfect in order for him to be accurate, he will need a clean pocket all the time, a strong running game and defense, playmakers, the right QB coach and OC...etc...etc. Does that sound familiar? It should; as that was one of the problems or limitations with Sanchez and in some degree Geno. Being that so much was invested in terms of draft pick(s), players and money for Sanchez, I was all for creating that perfect environment for him to have a chance to succeed. But for low investment guys like Geno, Petty and Hack, the onus is on them to overcome their surroundings and thrive in spite of. Their leashes are just not as long; we can't afford them to be. Mahomes strikes me as someone who can make chicken salad out of chicken sh!t.
I don't know that everything has to go right in order for Hack to succeed. He's a tough kid, has a high football IQ that Sanchez and Geno can only dream about, and a strong arm. If he can get his fundamentals back, as long as he doesn't take a regular pounding in the NFL like he did at PSU, I think he'll do alright.
doesn't really matter because it looks like we are rolling with Hack... I think Fournette will be the pick if he is still there... If he's gone i think they will go pass rusher with either John Allen, Sol Thomas or Derek Barnette
There's no way they're gonna take Allen or Thomas. They are DL and the fanbase would revolt! They have zero needs on the DL except maybe at NT, and they've spent enough 1st round picks on the DL for a decade or two.
I would like Fournette if they don't take Watson or Mahomes, but if they skip Fournette, I would hope for Cook or Howard - I think that upgrading the offense is their #1 priority. Of course what I want is immaterial, it's what Macc and Bowles want, and that probably means "D" again.
I have to disagree with the multi-year project theory. You don't draft anyone on the hope that two years down the road they might be ready to play. I don't think it works that way in the NFL. The burden on development is on the player to prove to the team they are ready. I will agree that with a first round pick, there's a little less proof required because of the money invested, but for all others, even seventh round and FA's, you've got to show the team you can play better than the guy ahead of you, unless there's an injury situation that pushes you to the front of the line.
It wasn't a theory, but rather a fact. You can disagree all you want, Westie. Most things are opinion, but this isn't. I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this issue. Tell me this...if there are no multi-year projects, why do you think they have the PS and the rules are such that players can spend 2-3 seasons on the PS? If players have to prove they can play within a year, why did Mac say that Hack was never gonna play in his first year and why did the Jets wait until after the season to begin changing his fundamentals? Why has it been frequently said that Hack is only 21 and it can take several years for him to develop and he'll still be young? Why don't we see a lot more roster turnover, and why do we see young players hanging around for 2 or 3 years, and sometimes longer?
I base what I said on what Bowles said when asked why he was reluctant to play Petty or Hackenberg. He said something to the effect "you have to earn on the practice field the right to play on Sunday ." I took that to mean they hadn't shown enough in practice to earn the right to start over Fitzpatrick. That in itself is troubling because we all know the bar set by Fitzpatrick this year was pretty low. I don't think the primary purpose of the practice squad is to develop players. It is a means to extend the roster beyond 53 in case of injuries. Players are kept on the roster because they have contracts and to cut them will hurt the cap. Players who are still on the PS after a year or so, are there because they have been deemed better than other players vying for those spots. We see PS players dropped and others picked up all the time. I don't think a player's potential plays into it that much. Yeah, officially, they may say we think this player is going to be real good one day, but that's not the main reason the guy is still on the roster IMO.
In theory, taking a player that you know will need some time to develop is okay...in say Round 5. But taking a QB who you alrady know has his fundamentals perhaps hopelessly screwed up in the SECOND round was either pure idiocy or pure hubris. What is was NOT was smart. Taking Tom Brady in the 6th round - smart; taking Christian Hackenberg in the 2nd round - DUMB.
I didn't vote - I honestly can't fathom the thought of the Jets drafting a project at #6. And a questionable starter in the next 2 the 3 years...while also having 2 other wet-behind-the-ear QB's waiting in the wings....tough to fathom.
