Even worse is they need to highly consider a QB in the first because of this uncertainty. They "could" have their qb but due to their unwillingness to invest time in him and opportunities for him to prove himself they are handcuffed. There is absolutely no guarantee they will be in as good a position to draft a FQB next year. Watson does look very promising even with his drawbacks. The FO did this to themselves. If Hackenberg sucks it up but petty goes in a wins enough games to lose out on "the darnold sweepstakes" where does that leave them. F****d. That's where. I think they have no choice but to take someone this year. Not because they want to.
Even worse is they need to highly consider a QB in the first because of this uncertainty. They "could" have their qb but due to their unwillingness to invest time in him and opportunities for him to prove himself they are handcuffed. There is absolutely no guarantee they will be in as good a position to draft a FQB next year. Watson does look very promising even with his drawbacks. The FO did this to themselves. If Hackenberg sucks it up but petty goes in a wins enough games to lose out on "the darnold sweepstakes" where does that leave them. F****d. That's where. I think they have no choice but to take someone this year. Not because they want to.
Agreed. So unless they are 100% sold on someone in the draft, I think they should sign a bridge QB (Even Geno if need be) and let them fight it out with Hack and Petty in 2017. Get another year of Petty/Hack evaluation, which should be enough to decide where to go in the 2018 draft.
Every day I hate this regime more & more.. They cannot be shown the door soon enough. It's horrifying to know that these are the FOOLS that are supposed to be rebuilding us from the rock bottom status they contributed to.
It would be great if Hackenberg developed into the FQB that Macc apparently saw in his dreams, but are you willing to sit back and wait three more years for that to happen? I'm not. If they want to keep him cloistered for a few more years and pay him money they could use for more productive purposes that's their choice, but it's a bad one. Hack needs to show some ROI or he should be let go.
Because a rookie QB didn't play in his first season, some media members and fans have written him off as a non-factor. Playing QB is perhaps one of the hardest positions in pro-sports. Sometimes players learn on the fly, sometimes it takes them years, everyone is different. Some don't pan out......but the point is him sitting for a season is not a reason to automatically dismiss him as a bust. The reality of the situation is many great QB's have had the luxury of sitting and learning before being thrown into the fire, Hack deserves that as well. Also, this is not me arguing he will be a star QB, a savior of the Jets, I am arguing primarily to defend the notion that QB's should be given some time in order to be judged fairly and accurately. Judging Hack because of his preseason stuff, or the fact that he was redshirted last year, to me is irrelevant to the general outlook of his young career.
Where does this "three years" come from? Like not playing for three years will make him a better player? Where do these ideas come from?
Well to answer that brock osweiler sat for like 4 years and he's pretty much the best QB in the league
DarkKnight: "He just turned 22. Don't you think it is possible by the age of 25 he could be a strong NFL QB?"
It's not because he "sat" for a year. It's because the appearance of the CS not trusting him to play, even when we had nobody else. Maybe he's the best thing since sliced bread, but there has been no indication, in any form, that he is near ready to take snaps in a game, even as a mop up. And a big part of the questioning is based on the serious doubt that anyone on the Jets knows how to develop a QB even if you gave the guy all the time in the world. This team needs to show the fans some progress in this area NOW. I think waiting 50 years is patience enough.
I did not say not to play him til he is 25. Just said he can be potentially a good player by then. If you don't play him at age 22, definitely have to by 23. However, with the Jets trying to trade for Semien, that is a bad sign on their thoughts on Hack.
LarrAlRalph: "Where does this "three years" come from? Like not playing for three years will make him a better player?" I re-posted your comment in response the above, and your original comment certainly implied that if you sat him for 3 years - do the math: 25 - 22 = 3 - he might be a good QB. I questioned that as a strategy.
50 years, 1 year, nothing means anything when you bring in a rookie QB. It has no relevance to me because when you draft a QB you have to have a plan. In my opinion, the Jets from the start viewed Hackenberg as a long term project. Now, if they go ahead and draft a QB high in the draft then you know they aren't high on Hack. If they sign a cutler then they view Hack as a possible starter in a year or two, if they trade for Siemien or McCaron then I think its fair to assume Hack isn't the answer. The optic of the situation looks bad. Of course we would have liked to see him play given the QB position in the 2016 season, but rushing QB's when everyone around them is going through the motions, in a losing season, is probably not the road to success. I guess what I'm trying to say is Hack, like many other rookie QB's that come into the NFL, need time to develop. No need to throw him in if you don't feel like he's ready. What decisions the Jets make in terms of player acquisition at the QB position will tell us all a lot of what the Jets think about hack.
Doesn't matter who the QB is ..he wont"win enough games" trust me Take a look at the 2017 schedule ...I had this discussion yesterday ..we have games against the panthers broncos saints plus the improved AFC East ,,NE is impossible..San diego hard too I think we take a QB NOW just NOT at 6 Throw him in there to compete w Hack/Petty...but just be prepared to win 2 games 2017.... jmho
yeah but if we trade a good player like Richardson and end up with Semen its gonna be a little disappointing
Fine, but regardless of where it came from, I just don't understand how anyone can think not playing for 3 years will make anyone a better player. Maybe we should go after Vince Young then? Hell, JaMarcus Russell's probably looking for work, too!
