Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Hackenberg is looking like Mallet at the combine, smh.

Mangler

Mangler

Toro de España
Anyone else watching the combine? I can't help but notice that Hackenberg has serious accuracy issues, and I agree with what the commentators are saying about Hack. If he looks this bad when he's working with just a receiver while not facing any coverage, one can only wonder how he'd perform in the NFL while facing good coverage. He has missed 1 out of 3, or 2 out of three in almost every drill, while the others pretty much complete all their passes. He reminds me of Ryan Mallet, three REALLY BAD throws for every one good throw.

I hope we stay away from Hackenberg, but it looks like O'Brien may still go with him. O'Brien looks like a high school girl seeing her crush in the hallway every time Hack hits the field. I doubt he learned anything out of that whole Hoyer/Mallet deal, and probably still thinks he can polish a turd enough to be turned into gold.
 
Bulls on Parade said:
That's a compliment depending on whom you ask.
Click to expand...
Having accuracy issues is hardly a compliment. I will admit that I was one of the few that really wanted Mallet to win the starter job cause I thought Hoyer was garbage, but when I saw how lousy (in game) Mallet truly was, I had no problem with Hoyer getting the nod. I guess I read a little too much into his win against the Browns.(with Hoyer at QB)

I'm praying that Lynch's knee issue turned off at least two or three QB needy teams so he can fall to us. He's looking pretty good in there, though!
 
Last edited:
Mollywhopper said:
Who was worshipping Mallett? I know a lot of people, myself included, wanted him playing because we knew the stink that was coming with Hoyer. I don't remember anyone trying to rally the Mallett to the Super Bowl wagon though.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Let's not rewrite history. Lots of reasons folks wanted mallett to start and I don't remember many people wanting mallett because they thought he was destined to be a star.
 
Mollywhopper said:
Who was worshipping Mallett? I know a lot of people, myself included, wanted him playing because we knew the stink that was coming with Hoyer. I don't remember anyone trying to rally the Mallett to the Super Bowl wagon though.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everyone on this forum, me included, preferred Mallett to start because he wasn't Hoyer. Hoyer was awful, we already knew that. Mallett was probably awful, but we didn't know for sure.

However, there were quite a few who were convinced that he was the real deal and constantly made excuses for his crappy play on the field and idiotic off the field antics. They constantly criticized the coaches, the playcalling, the O-Line, and the receivers and then turned around and defended the guy who was turfing 5 yard hitches.

I don't need to name those people. They know who they are.
 
WolverineFan said:
Pretty much everyone on this forum, me included, preferred Mallett to start because he wasn't Hoyer. Hoyer was awful, we already knew that. Mallett was probably awful, but we didn't know for sure.

However, there were quite a few who were convinced that he was the real deal and constantly made excuses for his crappy play on the field and idiotic off the field antics. They constantly criticized the coaches, the playcalling, the O-Line, and the receivers and then turned around and defended the guy who was turfing 5 yard hitches.

I don't need to name those people. They know who they are.
Click to expand...

You're way off into revisionist history. But it's such a brief/insignificant event it isn't worth arguing.
 
WolverineFan said:
Pretty much everyone on this forum, me included, preferred Mallett to start because he wasn't Hoyer. Hoyer was awful, we already knew that. Mallett was probably awful, but we didn't know for sure.

However, there were quite a few who were convinced that he was the real deal and constantly made excuses for his crappy play on the field and idiotic off the field antics. They constantly criticized the coaches, the playcalling, the O-Line, and the receivers and then turned around and defended the guy who was turfing 5 yard hitches.

I don't need to name those people. They know who they are.
Click to expand...

I guess I just viewed any rationalizing of Mallett the whole time as an anything-but-Hoyer plea, even at their most vocal. I think if anyone of any real significance otherwise had been on the roster the Mallett shouts wouldn't have been as loud. Fair enough though.
 
WolverineFan said:
Pretty much everyone on this forum, me included, preferred Mallett to start because he wasn't Hoyer. Hoyer was awful, we already knew that. Mallett was probably awful, but we didn't know for sure.

However, there were quite a few who were convinced that he was the real deal and constantly made excuses for his crappy play on the field and idiotic off the field antics. They constantly criticized the coaches, the playcalling, the O-Line, and the receivers and then turned around and defended the guy who was turfing 5 yard hitches.

I don't need to name those people. They know who they are.
Click to expand...

I thought Mallett showed enough to work with. I wanted him to start over Fitz, because I knew what Fitz was. I wanted him to start over Hoyer, because I knew what Hoyer was. I saw absolutely no reason for O'bs QB carousel when O'b saw for himself what a wreck Hoyer was in game one. I did expect Mallett to make big strides as he got more game time, he just never got the chance. His fault, maybe. Head case, most likely. But I'd still want him QBing my team before Hoyer.

After that first game against KC, if Mallett was late for practice or missed a plane, I'd chew Hoyer's ass out & tell him to go get him. That's his number one job from then on. Make sure Mallett is where he needs to be, when he needs to be. Because he's never taking another snap for my team.

I think I speak for all of us, it was more about Hoyer than it ever was about Mallett.
 
Mollywhopper said:
Who was worshipping Mallett? I know a lot of people, myself included, wanted him playing because we knew the stink that was coming with Hoyer. I don't remember anyone trying to rally the Mallett to the Super Bowl wagon though.
Click to expand...

For the record I was NEVER a Mallett fan. I said at the time that if Belichick wanted to trade him, you didn't want him.

Mangler said:
Having accuracy issues is hardly a compliment. I will admit that I was one of the few that really wanted Mallet to win the starter job cause I thought Hoyer was garbage, but when I saw how lousy (in game) Mallet truly was, I had no problem with Hoyer getting the nod. I guess I read a little too much into his win against the Browns.(with Hoyer at QB)

I'm praying that Lynch's knee issue turned off at least two or three QB needy teams so he can fall to us. He's looking pretty good in there, though!
Click to expand...

I'm hearing his shoulder is more of a concern than his knee.

Paxton Lynch says a couple of teams were “spooked” by Combine medical exam
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ple-of-teams-spooked-by-combine-medical-exam/
 
I probably didn't pay as much attention to some of the other QBs as I did Hackenberg. But from what I saw, he had the worst showing in the passing drills today. Mix in that with his play the past two seasons, I can't fathom how anyone would come to the conclusion that Hackenberg is a potential franchise QB. Unimaginable.
 
Lucky said:
I probably didn't pay as much attention to some of the other QBs as I did Hackenberg. But from what I saw, he had the worst showing in the passing drills today. Mix in that with his play the past two seasons, I can't fathom how anyone would come to the conclusion that Hackenberg is a potential franchise QB. Unimaginable.
Click to expand...
Exactly! And if Rick Smith thought Carr would be a tough sell (dumbest move EVER) just what will Hackenberg be? Sadly, there are some who still think Hack would be a good fit for us. I don't exactly know what the heck they're seeing...

WolverineFan said:
I agree it's not. It's in the past and hopefully OB will actually attempt to upgrade the position this offseason because it's a mess.
Click to expand...
Everything is pointing to another Rick Smith move. By Rick Smith, I mean stupid.
 
Mangler said:
Exactly! And if Rick Smith thought Carr would be a tough sell (dumbest move EVER) just what will Hackenberg be? Sadly, there are some who still think Hack would be a good fit for us. I don't exactly know what the heck they're seeing...


Everything is pointing to another Rick Smith move. By Rick Smith, I mean stupid.
Click to expand...


Carr and Rick Smith? What?

Are you talking about David Carr?
 
WolverineFan said:
Pretty much everyone on this forum, me included, preferred Mallett to start because he wasn't Hoyer. Hoyer was awful, we already knew that. Mallett was probably awful, but we didn't know for sure.
Click to expand...

We see the same trend beginning now with savage vs Hoyer (or weeden or whatever recycled vet we get.) By the time preseason ends it's likely to be an all out feeding frenzy to start the rookie or savage over the vet. Until we know what savage or the rookie is- this board is sure to be as hostile and frantic as its ever been. People want to know if the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

WolverineFan said:
However, there were quite a few who were convinced that he (mallet) was the real deal and constantly made excuses for his crappy play on the field and idiotic off the field antics. They constantly criticized the coaches, the playcalling, the O-Line, and the receivers and then turned around and defended the guy who was turfing 5 yard hitches.

I don't need to name those people. They know who they are.
Click to expand...

I know who they are to. I said mallet had no touch on his passes and half the board came down on me defending their Cinderella. He didn't have touch before I said it, when I said it, or since. But ya know, who wants to revisit history and take accountability?
 
powda said:
I know who they are to. I said mallet had no touch on his passes and half the board came down on me defending their Cinderella. He didn't have touch before I said it, when I said it, or since. But ya know, who wants to revisit history and take accountability?
Click to expand...

Accountability?? I thought that meant firing... can we be fired from the TexansTalk?
 
The last thing we need around here is another one of these discussions but I've got to agree about the Mallett thing.

You all know where I stood on him. I made my stance before he even stepped on the field for us. I was open to giving him a chance and letting him change my mind and admitting that I was wrong. I have done so here before. But he never demonstrated anything even remotely close to a flash of some grand potential.

However, the backlash I received on this board for daring to have a negative opinion on Mallett was staggering. The absurdity of the "potential" of Mallet claimed by our fans was just about the most annoying thing I've ever encountered on this board.
 
bah007 said:
The last thing we need around here is another one of these discussions but I've got to agree about the Mallett thing.

You all know where I stood on him. I made my stance before he even stepped on the field for us. I was open to giving him a chance and letting him change my mind and admitting that I was wrong. I have done so here before. But he never demonstrated anything even remotely close to a flash of some grand potential.

However, the backlash I received on this board for daring to have a negative opinion on Mallett was staggering. The absurdity of the "potential" of Mallet claimed by our fans was just about the most annoying thing I've ever encountered on this board.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I got the same backlash when I gave similar opinions.

There was definitely more than a "he's the best of the bad QBs on our roster" mindset from quite a few around here.

But it doesn't really matter. It's hard to judge quarterbacks, especially when it's been years since they've had any meaningful playing time.
 
thunderkyss said:
Accountability?? I thought that meant firing... can we be fired from the TexansTalk?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be awesome? A committee of members who evaluate everything every member says. "Look bro, your a nice guy and all but everything you say is wrong. Your football opinions suck. You don't get along with most people. Your not funny. You've been voted off the site."

Forget likes or reps. How bout a giant percentage number next to every posters name? Im down for that.
 
bah007 said:
The last thing we need around here is another one of these discussions but I've got to agree about the Mallett thing.

You all know where I stood on him. I made my stance before he even stepped on the field for us. I was open to giving him a chance and letting him change my mind and admitting that I was wrong. I have done so here before. But he never demonstrated anything even remotely close to a flash of some grand potential.

However, the backlash I received on this board for daring to have a negative opinion on Mallett was staggering. The absurdity of the "potential" of Mallet claimed by our fans was just about the most annoying thing I've ever encountered on this board.
Click to expand...

Im really ok with saying mallet deserved a chance. He did and we knew hoyer wasn't Montana. No harm no foul. But attacking posters personally for saying ANYTHING critical and being spot on about their observations? Accountability.

This site really does allow a LOT of freedom of expression. Ive said things to cak personally before fully expecting to be banned. I wasn't. It's appreciated. But how many ridiculous suggestions do posters have to make before their exiled?

Example:

Lets make Arian Foster a tight end.

Are you kidding me?
 
infantrycak said:
Is this the self-appointed martyr group therapy thread?

Folks wanted to see an unknown against a known. It's that simple. Known smacked us and hopefully OB right in the forehead at 30-0.

Y'all have any useful prognostications?
Click to expand...

No, and I know it comes off that way. Just wanted to agree on that subject.

I don't blame us for making the move, in the end we simply lost a 6th rounder for a shot at a QB. I'll take that.
 
TexansSeminole said:
No, and I know it comes off that way. Just wanted to agree on that subject.

I don't blame us for making the move, in the end we simply lost a 6th rounder for a shot at a QB. I'll take that.
Click to expand...

If a warning came thru on that it was a mistake. Was trying to like your post.
 
I don't care who hackenberg looked like today. All I know is he didn't look very good. The guy that said BoB looks at hackenberg like an old flame nailed it.
 
chicagotexan2 said:
I don't care who hackenberg looked like today. All I know is he didn't look very good. The guy that said BoB looks at hackenberg like an old flame nailed it.
Click to expand...

Problem is this is his current flame .

MV5BMjE2MDc2NDE0MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTI4MzU2MTE@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg
 
chicagotexan2 said:
I don't care who hackenberg looked like today. All I know is he didn't look very good. The guy that said BoB looks at hackenberg like an old flame nailed it.
Click to expand...
Everyone saying Hack sucks; this is why in another thread I stated if O'Brien drafts him he better start game one. What can coach see that no one else does? If Hack is the pick and he is no good (defined as starting in 2017), O'Brien should be fired.
 
badboy said:
Everyone saying Hack sucks; this is why in another thread I stated if O'Brien drafts him he better start game one. What can coach see that no one else does? If Hack is the pick and he is no good (defined as starting in 2017), O'Brien should be fired.
Click to expand...
If O'Brien starts Hackenberg in game one, he should be fired. If you are inconsistent in college, chances are you will be inconsistent in the NFL where the speed multiplies, and the coverage is even better. I stand firm in my assessment of him looking as consistent and accurate as Mallet.
 
From listening to Mayock, it sounds like Hackenburg got the David Carr treatment in college. Good his freshman year, then got the sh!t beat out of him the next 3.

That's permanently damaged goods if you ask me.
 
Marcus said:
From listening to Mayock, it sounds like Hackenburg got the David Carr treatment in college. Good his freshman year, then got the sh!t beat out of him the next 3.

That's permanently damaged goods if you ask me.
Click to expand...

That makes sense for what Maglur was saying earlier, I understand now.
 
Marcus said:
He also wrote another one that they're meeting with Paxton Lynch. :shrug:

Doesn't every prospect meet with all teams?
Click to expand...

I think each team is limited to so many visits at the combine.... 18 is the number I'm thinking of, don't know why. It may be 11.

But... no. every prospect will not meet with every team.
 
infantrycak said:
Upgraded cat status.


You understand this is 2016 right?
Click to expand...
Quite. I would probably give until game one 2017 although I earlier stated he should have to start 2016. I am just not caught up in the love OBrien has for someone he coached three years ago for one season. To be fair I should not evaluate a QB until second year in season. Still someone would be sure to come along and say "the QB was in system but carrying clip board so give him yet another year."
 
badboy said:
Quite. I would probably give until game one 2017 although I earlier stated he should have to start 2016. I am just not caught up in the love OBrien has for someone he coached three years ago for one season. To be fair I should not evaluate a QB until second year in season. Still someone would be sure to come along and say "the QB was in system but carrying clip board so give him yet another year."
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a thread on here showing that a QB can be fairly evaluated after 32 starts? That seems legit but I don't want to sit through one Hackenesack start much less 32.
 
DocBar said:
Wasn't there a thread on here showing that a QB can be fairly evaluated after 32 starts? That seems legit but I don't want to sit through one Hackenesack start much less 32.
Click to expand...
General consensus and conventional wisdom for a a QB playing in the NFL is 20 STARTS.
 
the narrative about how Hack is destined to be the pick and how OB is so in love with him has run amuck both locally and nationally.

Of course he's gonna say good things about the kid, he coached him for 1 year and he's not blind, he sea the physical tools that everyone sees. In the grand scheme of things though, the good things OB is saying about him mean about as much as the good things he says about other players and QB's in this draft that he hasn't coached. The media would likely find that out if they asked him about any other QB besides Hack.

It also seems like every year now the media likes to make these weak ass links with HC and qbs only for it to not materialize.


Kelly-mariota
Marrone- Dysert

OB-Hack seems to be this years version of the above
 
Penn State QB Christian Hackenberg — “I felt bad watching him throw because he’s a competitive guy,” the QBs coach said. “You could tell he wanted to go out there and do well. It was just so hot and cold, and that’s what you see [on tape] with him. There were two Big Ten guys [along with Wisconsin’s Joel Stave] who struggled. But this guy, you hear the name [and] you expected better.” Added the college director: “Hack made excuses for bad play [in a team interview]. I didn’t like that.”
Click to expand...
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...-the-2016-nfl-scouting-combine-160909533.html
 
DocBar said:
Can you supply any literature regarding this? I've never heard the number 20 in any discussion on this topic.

Supporting 32-48 games.
Click to expand...
I wish I could but I can't. I've heard it a couple of times in conversation from folks like Bill Polian, Brian Billick but I'm not exactly sure. Your 32 -48 games study may be more accurate for a breakout. The 20 game starter discussion was directed more to the idea of knowing whether the QB would have a future and after 20 starts you had an idea. General Consensus and Conventional Wisdom is not an exact science but more of a basic rule of thumb.
 
Texian said:
I wish I could but I can't. I've heard it a couple of times in conversation from folks like Bill Polian, Brian Billick but I'm not exactly sure. Your 32 -48 games study may be more accurate for a breakout. The 20 game starter discussion was directed more to the idea of knowing whether the QB would have a future and after 20 starts you had an idea. General Consensus and Conventional Wisdom is not an exact science but more of a basic rule of thumb.
Click to expand...

& I thought it was a Bill Parcels thing.
 
thunderkyss said:
& I thought it was a Bill Parcels thing.
Click to expand...
It might've been, that sounds like Parcels. He may have said it when he first made the decision to start Romo. Something along the lines of comments like, let's not put him the Hall of Fame just yet, it's to early to measure him for a Bust, we will have a better idea after he starts 20 games whether he can even play in this league. I've heard the 20 game comments from someone in a high position like Parcels.
 
Texian said:
It might've been, that sounds like Parcels. He may have said it when he first made the decision to start Romo. Something along the lines of comments like, let's not put him the Hall of Fame just yet, it's to early to measure him for a Bust, we will have a better idea after he starts 20 games whether he can even play in this league. I've heard the 20 game comments from someone in a high position like Parcels.
Click to expand...

yea on the Texans Radio show today they mentioned the 20 start rule, and said it was the Parcells rule
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top