Hackney is a solid QB with a cannon he'll go sometime late in the first of early in the second.....the Boys can take Hackney Stripes [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Printable View
Hackney is a solid QB with a cannon he'll go sometime late in the first of early in the second.....the Boys can take Hackney Stripes [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
as a steelers fan lindell white would be a great addition to fast willie parker. im pretty sure the bus is going to park and enjoy a well deserved rest
Hackney is David Garrard with a lil less scrambling ability and a bigger arm. At 6'1 and 235, I think he's undersized to play QB in the NFL...there's only been a few guys able to succeed to play at that size and survive the hits you're gonna take. He may make a nice lifetime backup for a team, good scout team type guy--nothing wrong with that. Still getting paid.
What makes him undersized man, his height, his weight?..Im lost.
The 6'1 mega...I think he'll have trouble getting the ball elevated enough, because his throwing motion is already about 3/4 to sidearm. I think if he gets his delivery right, he'll be fine, maybe even be a starter one day (but late in his career like Rich Gannon for instance). But the delivery added to his height given an NFL line is a question mark. Same question mark people still have about your boy Grossman (6'1, 218), but the same question over came by a guy like Drew Brees (6'0, 209) because of his throwing motion being a high & quick release...so it can be overcome.
Besides...Montana was only 6'2, 205, and he did well. I just think that, IMO, Hackney's only going to be a good backup or scout-teamer.
Go look around at the NFL rosters though mega, most of your really good QB's are in that 6'3 to 6'5 range. 2-4 inches more height advantage to see over a line makes a pretty good difference.
I would have thought that the success of Doug Flutie in college, Canada, and part timer in the NFL would have disspelled that belief.
If not, then the success of Brees.
These so-called professional scouts who love to downplay the physical stature of one player, and then overstate the stature of another one are about to ruin the sport.
Think about draft busts of the 90s alone. You had Todd Marinovich, the PROTOTYPICAL QB, 6'5, 200 lbs, blonde hair, blue eyes (Master Race anyone?) but what did he do? He couldn't even stay clean long enough to play for the Raiders. For crying out loud, the RAIDERS! Another? Tony Mandarich, 6'8 a gazillion pounds, but still able to run. Where's he now?
I think Flutie would have dominated in the NFL much like he did in the CFL, if someone would have given him 1/2 a chance. Look at Brady, if Bledsoe had not gone down, Brady would be lost in someone's depth chart. That kind of thing never happened for Flutie.
I know that mega hates Flutie for all the reasons I like him, but you can't deny the kid is a winner. Even in Buffalo at 100 years old he still played and won.
Brady's 6'4 225.
Flutie's talented, and knows how to use his legs to get into position and he is by far the best small QB of this modern era. He made a living throwing the ball inbetween the tackles...[img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] All 5'10 180 of him.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
You had Todd Marinovich, the PROTOTYPICAL QB, 6'5, 200 lbs, blonde hair, blue eyes (Master Race anyone?) but what did he do? He couldn't even stay clean long enough to play for the Raiders.
[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't about whether so-and-so can stay clean, it's about if they did stay clean, would you rather have a 6'5 QB or a 6'0 QB? Honestly--there's no wrong answer...depends on intangibles and technique. But in a pinch--take the taller guy. And why bring up Mandarich? Guy was an O-Lineman! In my very best Iverson impersonation: "We're talkin bout QB's man. QB's."
Here's what it boils down to--most pocket passers are between 6'3 and 6'5 (a guy like Brees being the exception...b/c he's pure pocket passer). Most pocket passers flourish in the NFL...only a few scrambling QB's have been winners in the modern NFL era (see Cunningham, Flutie, Steve Young, even a young Brunell). Most pro-style offenses, to be successful, need guys with big strong arms who can see down the field to throw it down the field. A taller guy has the natural capability to do that better than a scrambling QB who has to escape the pocket to create a throwing lane for himself to make plays.
In terms of passing yardage this year, your top 5 were Brady, Green, Favre, Palmer, and Eli Manning. The shortest of those is Favre at 6'2--the rest are 6'3 and above, the tallest being Palmer at 6'5.
Being a shorter QB can be done in the NFL...it's just more difficult, that's all I'm saying.
I dont hate Flutie man, I just hate 1984 and the damn wheaties commercial.
I think Grossman has one of the best releases in football. Its short, compact, and the ball just explodes out of his hand. He sees over the offensive line just fine and rarely has a ball knocked down.
Chris Simms is 6-4 and has about 5 balls a game batted down. Which just shows that regardless of height, good quarterbacks find the passing lanes.
Offensive and Defensive lineman dont just hit a growth spurt after college. Hackney's line all average anywhere between 6-4 and 6-6 and most defensive lineman are around 6'3(The bears entire dline is 6-3)
If Hackney makes it in the nfl it will be because he develops. I dont know how good he is at finding the passing lanes but there are plenty of tall guys like Simms that are bad at having balls knocked down and plenty of short guys like Grossman that are great at not having them knocked down. I dont think his height or release will make any difference.
Kyle Orton has alot more balls knocked down than Grossman and is about 5 inches taller. Grossman sees the field alot better too. QB height is overrated, its not like Hackney is a midget.
I think Marinovich failed football before he failed a drug test. All I am saying is that size (height, weight, armspan) doesn't always determine if someone is going to be successful in the NFL.
I know...not always. But for the most part I'd rather take the 6'5 guy who can throw the 15 yard comeback with ease than a 6'0 guy who has to break the pocket to throw the same pass.
You are right and wrong
You are 100% correct with this statment
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
(height, weight, armspan) doesn't always determine if someone is going to be successful in the NFL
[/ QUOTE ]
However There are always MANY more Collage QBs in the 6'3" - 6'5" range that are capable of playing for an NFL team than there are 5'-10" - 6'0" QBs.
You can't mesure a players Heart however that alone will only take you so far
Alot of people are questioning wheter or not Reggie Bush can be durable enough to carry the ball 25 times a game. Clinton Portis is listed as 5-11 212 pounds, and he averaged 22 carries a game. Reggie Bush is listed at 6-0 200 pounds. With that being said, and I may eat crow later for saying this, but I think Bush can and will be an every down back in the NFL, and have a great career. It may not be a long one, but I think whoever pays the amount of money that he is getting ready to get, they will want to get everything they can out of him.
If Warrick Dunn can do it, Bush can.
There are always exceptions to the rule but I don't know that you can classafy Dunn as an "Everydown back" now.
I think Bush will do well in the NFL as well my previes post was on undersized QBs which is a whole different story
sorry Counts I didn't mean my post towards you, I just had something on my mind and I typed it down, and you were the last person on this post so I replied using your post.
No problem
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
There are always exceptions to the rule but I don't know that you can classafy Dunn as an "Everydown back" now.
[/ QUOTE ]
How in the blue hades did he make the Pro Bowl then? Sure he was probably the last RB taken (w/Shaun Alexander and Tiki Barber in front), but backs that can't play on every offensive down don't usually make the Pro Bowl.
Do you remember when Tiki was considered a scatback and only got about 50-100 carries a year? They had to go out and get a feature back like Ron Dayne [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Exactly--now guys like Tiki and Warrick are in vogue and you want a smaller back who is durable and can do a multitiude of things from the RB position, catch the ball, split out into the slot or out wide, block a DE or LB in pass protection, etc...hell, even pass the ball ala Ladainian Tomlinson.
You know what made Barber into the everydown back he is now?
Coughlin changed the way he carried the ball. Why was his production so low for so long? He'd average about 12 fumbles a year. Now without that, he gets more PT and asked to do more within the offense.
The pro Bowl is a popularty contest and Dunn is not an every down back Tiki is (I don't know Tiki's size right off the top of my head but I would bet he is about 35 to 40 pounds heaver than Dunn who IMHO is a durable change of pace back but lines are blured all the time by some players and some of the great ones like Rice are not prototypical in size wise for there position
Tiki - 5'10, 200
Warrick - 5'9, 180
20 pounds is still a lot but not the 35-40 you were guessing. I have to disagree with something though--for the most part, it's a popularity contest to get into the Pro Bowl, but, there has to be something to over 1400 yards rushing at 5.1 yards a carry, even though he only garnered 11 total TD's (3 rush, 8 receiving), it's all in how you're used in the offense. Atlanta uses Dunn to soften up the D, establish the run, then run playaction w/Vick and let him hit Crumpler in the middle or Dunn on the checkdown. Dunn is diminuitive in size, but to be his size and be 4th in the NFC in rushing, plus let's add on to the stats that he played all 16 games, and was 6th in the NFC in total rushes w/280...that would mean to me he's durable, and an every-down back, once you take into consideration that he's one of the best blockers out of the backfield in the entire league today regardless of size.
Simms cost the bucs the game with those tipped passes, I told you being 6'5 isnt everything. Gotta find those passing lanes. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
If it's not a popularity contest then how does Vick make the Pro Bowl?
I really thought Barber was bigger than that (he sure plays bigger)
Dunn had a heck of a season this year but it has also been the most productive season of his career in which he is a 60 YPG guy that will have problems getting you the short yardage yards that an Every Down back can get you. Being fair Tiki's YPG avg is not much better but part of that can be blamed on his first 3 seasons in the league in which he looked horrable and averaged about 20 YPG. in the last 2 years Tiki has had close to 100 more carries than Dunn
That being said MY defanation of an every down back is one that can be on the field in any situation Passing down (as a blocker or receiver) outside runner, between the tackles runner, short/tough yardage runner.
everything else aside I don't think either of them would have a tough time making a teams roster LOL
Dude, I said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
for the most part, it's a popularity contest to get into the Pro Bowl
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree it's popularity to an extent b/c of the fan vote, but Dunn's stats back him up for the most part. The only thing he's lacking is rushing TD's, not because he couldn't be in on those short yardage situations to punch it in at the goalline, but because Mora uses Duckett down there a lot more with a Jumbo set to make sure he gets it in. If anyone watched any NFC football this season, then you know what Dunn can and cannot do--he's electric with the ball, and is a home run threat that is also consistent in all facets of the game. The only NFC back I would have given the nod to over him would have been Portis.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
That being said MY defanation of an every down back is one that can be on the field in any situation Passing down (as a blocker or receiver) outside runner, between the tackles runner, short/tough yardage runner.
[/ QUOTE ]
In bold, I feel this is the only place Dunn falls short, but where he falls short as an everydown back, there are other backs that can't do 2-3 of those 5 things you mentioned an every-down back should be able to do. Portis isn't a great blocker. Tiki is only an okay outside runner. Alexander doesn't have great hands.
The only guy that can do ALL of those in the league right now is Tomlinson.
Sorry, reply not directed at you, just adding to the argument, and your post was the last one I read, thus I replied to you.
There you go Tomlinson is an every down back. All the other teams in the NFL sould go out and get one just like him LOL [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
I see your point and agree to a point but it is just hard for me to label a guy an everydown back when he is taken out in almost every short yardage situation (The same thing happened in TB) That being said I do think he diserved making the Pro Bowl this year
Well I mean it's common sense Counts, if you've got bruisers like TJ Duckett and Mike Alstott, are you going to give the ball to them in short yardage or to Dunn? Especially with TB at that point in time, not only did you have Alstott, but you had Lorenzo Neal blocking for him, probably the best blocking FB in the modern era, IMO.
It's not that Dunn can't do it, it's that teams he's been on have had other and better short yardage specialist type of backs that are more useful in those situations...that's all I'm saying.