Agree as well. I hated the Hack pick at the time and still wish they had waited on a QB. He is in my avatar, but that's because I always root for the Jets players (even if I don't agree with the pick or signing).
56.1 completion pct and 6.8 YPA in college does not suggest a capable NFL QB. All the sacks also tend to raise the question of whether on top of his low performance results he has been David Carr-ed already.
Because he wasn't good in college. Usually players who get drafted are good. That's why you give them the benefit of the doubt.
LOL, david carr-ed. Was a damn shame how David Carr turned out. Guy looked like a lock to be a solid qb.
They say he is a gym rat and he does have the gun. It is all that in between stuff . The fog of football
After considering certain characteristics of this draft, what Mac comes into focus and makes a lot more sense: 1) this draft was pretty devoid of OL talent. Basically, more thin in OL talent than in recent memory. Now, you can attempt to criticize because Mac didn't get any OL depth, but I don't think Mac was shooting for depth? 2) this draft was pretty devoid of QB talent. I know probably some of you wanted to see Mac take a QB, but the fact is this draft was pretty weak on QB's. Some teams were pretty crazy to actually trade up to get QB's, but Mac knew better. Not to mention he already has two projects on the roster. 3) although this draft was loaded with talent, it was pretty much all on defense. It wasn't crazy talented on offense besides RB and TE. Defense is the area where you just couldn't go wrong. So Mac went where the talent was and stuck to taking BPA at all times. It's a very sound strategy for drafting. You may not like it, but would you rather Mac reached for garbage just to fill a need? I know it outwardly appears that Mac wants to build from the outside in? I know that doesn't make any sense from a big picture standpoint. But rest assured he maximized what he could get for talent in this draft. The fact is he probably netted at least 3 starters. That's not a slouch, that's actually really nailing it. All things considered, despite the great success that this draft was, this team still isn't going to win much more than about 2 or 3 games. But they set themselves up to have about 60 to 70 million in cap space and to have somewhat limited needs in the 2018 draft.
Context matters. Favre was the most recent of those guys and he was drafted 26 years ago before the great liberalization of the passing rules. In 1970 56.1% would have led the nation. In 1980 it was still a very good percentage. By 1990 it was what you expected out of gunslingers taking repeated deep shots instead of playing the short passing game. In 2017 it is just baaaaaad. You expect a college QB to complete 60% of his passes and numbers below that are subpar. 56.1% is just bad.
And Brady was at 61.9%. Don't you think if Hackenberg was throwing to a Michigan receiver corps instead of some Penn State leftovers, he might have added five points? Let's not change the rules mid game here you did mention "does not suggest a capable NFL QB" at 56.1%, I'm saying the precise number is not important unless you're in favor of getting Junk back here.
The precise number is actually pretty important. Adding in another guy drafted a generation ago doesn't change the fact. 61.9% in 2000 was an ok number. Not world-beating but good enough. 56.1% in 2016 was not.
I don't recall how much you agreed with Junk or not but he's another guy who never met a stat he didn't like. Standing alone stats certainly don't rise to the level of "The precise number is actually pretty important" in my book. What receivers hung around at Penn State to catch Hackenberg's passes? Could that have made a difference? Same question with his line? How about we let the guy play a few NFL games before we burn him at the stake?
My question to you is, are you new here? This board hates qb2 for the nyj. Most of them will advocate for acquiring any other qb2 from almost any other team to be the next franchise though. Its a big grass is greener complex.
He had 1 good year in a pro style offense and then struggled the next 2 years in a different system. The draft is a crap shoot. Sometimes the best college QBs do nothing on the pro level and sometimes unexpected guys break out and tear it up. I just find it way too early to assume he's going to fail, especially now that the Jets are doing it right and letting him sit until he's ready, instead of throwing him to the fire like past Jets QBs. The Jets aren't in as bad a position as many think. If Hack fails, then the Jets most likely have a high pick next year to use in a draft class where you will easily have the top 3 being all decent QBs, and not just out of need like Trubinski going #2 this year while not being rated as high as several other position players. The QB prospects for next year are looking much better than this year's class. The other scenario is that he shows flashes and improves his game as the year goes on and earns the starting job and we don't need to draft an early QB. One way or another.
The Jets still need to draft the QB if Hack is flashing during the year next year but has not proven he's the guy. You don't get many shots at a QB and the Jets almost never do. They'll take the hot QB over anybody else next year unless Hack has *proven* he's the guy.
It's just common sense If Hackenburg was any good/gave us the best chance to win as inept the HC is I believe he would have started him That's is the big reason he has not played although I believe he could have been out there for garbage time and gained experience
Agreed. And obviously it depends on where the Jets pick. Hack's play will affect that, but probably not as much as people think because of the youth and inexperience on the team as a whole. I have a feeling it will be a fun year, even though we likely win 3-4 games at most.
The question to me is whether those stats were because of being David Carr-ed during his college days. If he has recovered from that through this past redshirted year, will those stats be an exception in his career?
