Rockice_8 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 19 hours ago, ekill08x said: This Jets defense is so bad. I know we want to tout our rookie safeties, but lets be honest, neither can cover for #$%@. Hopefully that gets better next year. The D was the only thing keeping the game close. Wrong time to be disappointed in them, they played solid against a great offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby816 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 I hope we don’t get fooled into keeping Skrine just bc he had 1 good game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdelaney89 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 18 minutes ago, Bobby816 said: I hope we don’t get fooled into keeping Skrine just bc he had 1 good game. I think we hold onto him until we sign a corner or 2. There is no reason to cut him if we don't have a replacement for him. My ideal timeline would be: resign Claiborne before FA sign Johnson once FA starts release Skrine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekill08x Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Rockice_8 said: The D was the only thing keeping the game close. Wrong time to be disappointed in them, they played solid against a great offense. That was obviously after the first couple drives and they played stronger as the game went on, still we struggle in pass coverage and that is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDotNova Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Bobby816 said: We’ve already announced Petty will start. Meaning Hack won’t play this year. This is what I expected. I think he played bad enough to show us he is not the QBOTF. But he really needed to bomb for him not to get a second start. In order for Hack to get the last start, Petty would need to truly bomb (i.e., 4+ INTs) or Hack would need to grab the bull by the horn. I just don't see this coaching staff giving kids opportunities simply to give them an opportunity. They have to earn it or the person in front of them would have falter or get injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby816 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 44 minutes ago, SDotNova said: This is what I expected. I think he played bad enough to show us he is not the QBOTF. But he really needed to bomb for him not to get a second start. In order for Hack to get the last start, Petty would need to truly bomb (i.e., 4+ INTs) or Hack would need to grab the bull by the horn. I just don't see this coaching staff giving kids opportunities simply to give them an opportunity. They have to earn it or the person in front of them would have falter or get injured. It’s a true shame that this staff is so dumb to not see what they have with Hack before next season. And that’s the case again for us. We will finish more than likely 5-11 and to not see what Hack can do for atleast 2-4 games is dumb. I don’t think we play him at all this year (bating Petty doesn’t get injured). But hypothetically... even if we started him Week 17 it wouldn’t make a difference bc the sample size would be so small that it’s not enough to judge. Whether he’s go out there at throw 4 INTs doesn’t mean he sucks. If he went out there and thew 4 TDS doesn’t mean he’s good. A huge failure from the staff at QB for like the 8th year in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockice_8 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Hack and Petty both suck face it. Neither could beat out journeyman 38 year old QB and Hack couldn't beat out Petty for 2nd string and Petty obviously sucks. What does that say about Hack then? Even if you wanted to say the coaches wanted to play the veteran, which is nonsense anyway, then how can you defend Hack when he couldn't beat out Petty who will be out of this league in a few years probably. What's Hack's excuse for that? I just watched a terrible QB performance and Hack is so bad that they won't even entertain the idea of playing him. They would rather put Petty back in then play Hack. You can still hold out hope he improves (by all means go for it) but if that doesn't tell you how far away he still is then IDK what to tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdelaney89 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 My big thing is that Hack is under contract for 2 more years and anything he showed in 8 games this season would not have changed how we were going to approach this offseason. We don't need to see what we have in Hack this year, he's not a FA so he isn't going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekill08x Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 1 hour ago, rdelaney89 said: My big thing is that Hack is under contract for 2 more years and anything he showed in 8 games this season would not have changed how we were going to approach this offseason. We don't need to see what we have in Hack this year, he's not a FA so he isn't going anywhere. He may not even earn a spot next year, that's how bad he is. Honestly if he cant see the field in 2 lost years, there is no point in keeping him if hes just taking up a roster spot. I wouldn't be surprised if he was back, but i also wouldnt be surprised if we literally have 3 new QBs on this roster next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockice_8 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 1 hour ago, ekill08x said: He may not even earn a spot next year, that's how bad he is. Honestly if he cant see the field in 2 lost years, there is no point in keeping him if hes just taking up a roster spot. I wouldn't be surprised if he was back, but i also wouldnt be surprised if we literally have 3 new QBs on this roster next year. Completely agree although I can't see Mac bailing that early. He'll keep him on the roster as a 3rd sting on principal alone I'd guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich51 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 We played 33% of the game with 6 OLinemen plus Tomlinson at TE played about 40% of the snaps. IMO that game plan wasn’t meant for Petty to succeed. It was definitely not the way to show confidence in him. Petty wasn’t accurate but some of that might be the timing with the receivers plus the pressure he felt because of a lack of confidence by the coach. Next week I hope they let him just fling the ball downfield. Unfortunately we’ll probably play the 6OL again because we’re playing against two of the league’s best pass rushers and our offensive line just can’t match up. I’m not delusional so I don’t see Petty as a real option going forward but I would have liked to see him get a fair chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdelaney89 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 16 minutes ago, Rich51 said: We played 33% of the game with 6 OLinemen plus Tomlinson at TE played about 40% of the snaps. IMO that game plan wasn’t meant for Petty to succeed. It was definitely not the way to show confidence in him. Petty wasn’t accurate but some of that might be the timing with the receivers plus the pressure he felt because of a lack of confidence by the coach. Next week I hope they let him just fling the ball downfield. Unfortunately we’ll probably play the 6OL again because we’re playing against two of the league’s best pass rushers and our offensive line just can’t match up. I’m not delusional so I don’t see Petty as a real option going forward but I would have liked to see him get a fair chance. I thought it made sense, Petty's only good quality so far that we can tell is his long ball. Give him more time to throw and he may have a shot. Not to mention he gets injured easily so having the extra protection just makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekill08x Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 57 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said: Completely agree although I can't see Mac bailing that early. He'll keep him on the roster as a 3rd sting on principal alone I'd guess. I know we all wanted to like him, and we wanted to see the talent, but aside from his physical stature and a good arm, hes an absolute nightmare. Mac took a chance on a kid who truly does have a high ceiling based on the fact that hes got quite a football IQ too, but if your not accurate, you can kiss all that goodbye. Give me the 6'0 kid with a mediocre arm whose pinpoint any day of the week (not eluding to anyone just generalizing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby816 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 I think the staff is big on Hack fulfilling a process of development. That's why we didn't play him Week 17 last season and more than likely why we aren't playing him right now. Now in Year 3 it should be his time to take a big step. But that step might be too late depending on what we do in FA and the draft. I still stand by that Hack will start at QB for us before any QB drafted this year not named Rosen or Darnold. If Cousins or Bridgewater are signed I don't think Hack every gets a shot to start unless any injury occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doumeyer Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 10 hours ago, ekill08x said: That was obviously after the first couple drives and they played stronger as the game went on, still we struggle in pass coverage and that is a fact. Our defensive still gave up 31 points, How many times in the second half did the Saints shoot themselves in the foot, two bad fumbles deep in the red zone. Plus the TD pass that was called back because the receiver got lazy and his big toe touch the white line. The run defensive was great except at garbage time in the last minute when the Saints got a 50 yard run. Overall out defensive is getting better & better every game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.