I am a film junkie. Georgia didn’t play a soft defense in the second half (especially in Q4). I haven’t looked at the film In a long time but I am almost certain they played man free coverage (man coverage with a safety over the top). I am not going to say anything bad about Hack because I like the kid. But once TM got his feet wet, Georgia was in trouble. I think we win that game if we had another 2 minutes.
I am a film junkie. Georgia didn’t play a soft defense in the second half (especially in Q4). I haven’t looked at the film In a long time but I am almost certain they played man free coverage (man coverage with a safety over the top). I am not going to say anything bad about Hack because I like the kid. But once TM got his feet wet, Georgia was in trouble. I think we win that game if we had another 2 minutes.
Nothing will help him in the NFL this year or possibly forever as a player. The kid might be able to go to another league somewhere, work on his techniques, see a sports psychologist or whatever.
In my opinion the kid made a wrong wrong decision going to NFL when his skill set was very much damaged. He needed to go somewhere for 2 to play 1
He needed to be a 5 yr QB in college not a 3 yr who was beset by the “gunshot syndrome.” This is in my option a QB/Wr/RB phenomena caused by getting pummel . He needed confidence and needed to play at the Collegiate Level in order to do so.
The way things worked, I almost believe the advice he got to turn pro was based upon his Rookie Season AND his tale of the tape and his arm.
Bad long term advice for Hack
Yeah he got 2nd round money
That was the risk
Was it worth it?
In my opinion That QB from Kansas would have served us better for 2 years
If you knew the family you would discount her statement greatly
This comes from the parent of a player who saw less playing time because he dropped easy ones. Parents were a pain in HS as well.
He spent two years with the Jets, not getting hit ONCE.
I doubt his issues stem from being sacked in college.
He couldn't cut it in practice.
LdN
He was drafted in the second round and made two million. Sounds like good advice to me. Do you think Hack was going to be mobile if he spent another two years in college? Do you think college coaches were going to teach him more than he learned the last two years from NFL coaches?
The reality is Hack is not an NFL player and two extra years of college would only expose him MORE. He was not that great as a freshman. The media really played him up. His claim to fame was a jump ball to Arob. He was the 9th ranked QB in the B10 out of 12 that year.
It is not about mobility
Was Peyton Mobile
Is Brady Mobile
It is about playing the game
Adjusting to a hot read
Footwork
Sliding/ moving in the pocket
It’s about technique
If you lose it
You get it back
By repitition in Practice
Playing in scrimmages
Playing in a game for a program you can achieve success
It is not about reinventing Hack
It was about rebuilding him
And polishing it once you get him to where he was during his 1st year
2 more years in ACollege May have helped him get to that point
Manning, Brady, Breese and others needed 4 or 5 years
Hack used 3
It is no one’s fault
But his, his advisors, his parents and those who thought he was ready for the NFL
Two more years of college Hack would not even get drafted. He would have been exposed. Hack would have had to beat out Mcsorley for the starting job. Hack would have been on the bench the last two years.
You want to get back to where he was his freshman year? You mean the year he was ranked 9th out of 12 QBs in the B10? The year PSU won 7 games? The reality is Hack was not that good his freshman year either. PSU lost to CFU, Nebraska, Indiana, Minnesota and OT vs Illinios. Go back and watch the games.
Last edited:
Boy, Rag, I know you like Hackenberg, but the evidence is in. Its time to shut it down.
As far as playing football goes, staying in college is never better than making tons of money and being able to focus solely on developing your game. There are other reasons that staying in college may be worthwhile for some, but that's for a different discussion. Coaching in college with limited practice time surrounded by distractions and other responsibilities will never come close to the development you can get at the pro level. If the Jets or Hack's crew didn't properly invest in him that's unfortunate, but staying in college instead of getting picked in the 2nd is almost never a good decision. This is especially true when you consider Hack was liable to see his stock plummet if placed in a situation with less excuses. The potential downside from staying in college was enormous.
Sucks it didn't work out. I appreciate his time in the program and hope he's not bitter over how disappointing it must be to go from top of the world as a teenager to this. Looking big picture he's now a young, tall, handsome, bright kid with a good family and a couple mil head start. Plus, unlike most guys who spend time in the league he's still physically healthy and won't have to deal with CTE. NFL hopes are probably dead, but I think his life will turn out OK and I'm happy for him.
Sucks it didn't work out. I appreciate his time in the program and hope he's not bitter over how disappointing it must be to go from top of the world as a teenager to this. Looking big picture he's now a young, tall, handsome, bright kid with a good family and a couple mil head start. Plus, unlike most guys who spend time in the league he's still physically healthy and won't have to deal with CTE. NFL hopes are probably dead, but I think his life will turn out OK and I'm happy for him.
I'm certain we win that game if Trace got all the practice reps and played the entire game. By that point, he was the better QB. Likely a big reason Hack turned pro and "forgot" to thank Franklin on his way out the door.
Hack was not going to be the #1 QB the next year. Many fans wanted to see Hack with Moorhead. Hack would have been on the bench with Moorhead.
Last edited:
I thought I was going to be the one to get to say this but the last post in the thread, yours, beat me to it. I think he saw the writing on the wall and left.
The PFF analysis of him coming out of college has been posted here before. They literally watch and grade every single play and they gave him a grade of "undraftable." PSU coaches surely watch and grade every play too (as well as practice plays of the backup QBs too). I think the last game CH started at PSU was going to be his last start regardless of whether he left.
he's lucky the jets we dumb enough to take him in the 2nd round. I doubt he even would have made the team his 1st year if he would have been a lower round pick.
you can play whatever scheme you want and tell the players to let people catch things underneath but don't get beat long and give up an easy TD.
GA was never "in trouble". They were up by 7 deep in our territory with 1:52 to go and because they had a bad FG kicker, went for it on 4th down. We may have been able to score a TD, we may have tied it with a PAT, we may have gone for two...but they were never "in trouble."
Moreover, GA was up by 21 going into the 4th quarter. Trace was 14 - 27 for 142 yards. Hack was 8-14 for 139 yards.
Last edited:
If you think Georgia was playing soft in Q4, then you don’t understand the game well enough to have a meaningful conversation. I am quite confident in my assessment and ability to review film. Georgia was playing the same style of coverage in Q4 as it was in Q1. Pull up any coverage Georgia used in the second half and I will quickly find an example of the same coverage in the first half.
Moreover, most of TM’s critical passes in the game were not dump offs or simple underneath stuff. Just look at the two TD passes in Q4 and some of the critical 3/4th down throws he made.
Football is a game of momentum. The momentum shifted decidedly in Penn State’s favor in Q4. We were moving the ball and Georgia had little in the way of answers to stop us. Remember, Georgia had a 21 point lead on us at one point and we were a Hail Mary away from tying the game. If we had another minute or two on the clock, I am confident we score. If an opponent did to us what we did to Georgia in Q4, I think it would be reasonable to say we were in trouble and I am glad the game ended when it did.
Fair enough...but if you watch football at the college or NFL level, you see teams up by 21 play a softer coverage, regardless of scheme. we see teams come back all the time from huge deficits in the pass happy era. On top of that, teams spend a lot of time defending tendencies, strengths and forcing them into weaknesses all the time. In that season, Trace had 40 passes the entire year. GA had no idea who he was or what he would do, let alone care being up by 21 going into the 4th.
Trace was 3 - 9 for 23 yards. Then completed 11 of 18 for 119 yards and 2 touchdowns. Sure UGA was sitting back a little bit. But Trace didn't force things (no interceptions). He also had 7 carries for 31 yards. I can't say for certain we would have won had he played the entire game any more than you can say we still would have lost. Both are opinions. I saw a kid come in and gain confidence in himself and lead the team to within one pass of tying the score.
To say Georgia was never "in trouble" is dismissing the fact that the last play of the game was one of those 50/50 balls we've come to have a love/hate relationship with. If that goes our way, would Georgia have been in trouble?
True. They didn’t have a lot of info on Trace. But our scheme didn’t change from what they prepared for (we ran the same plays). Plus, while Georgia didn’t have a lot of info on Trace, Trace had zero experience playing in real games when it counts (I am not counting garbage time). As good as Trace might have been in practice, you never know how someone will play until they see live bullets. And Trace was dropped into a war zone by having to go against the #1 pass defense in the country in his first real action. So I bet both the PSU and Georgia staffs were curious about what he would do when Hack went out. In short, I would say it was a push for both teams from a preparedness standpoint.
really? you might want to watch again
starting here
1-10 soft zone
1-10 run
2 run
3rd soft zone
1-10 run vs zone
1-10 scramble
2 run vs zone
3rd run vs m/f
4-8 pass 1st vs soft zone
1-10 zone inc zone
2-10 TD zone so at 6:14 to go its 24-17 and I agree at that point it is anyone's ball game
The big thing ---- and this was VERY noticeable from inside the stadium in Jacksonville on that gray cool afternoon --- the team's energy increased by about 5-fold when McSorley came in.
I've said this before --- 2 things that set us up for success in the back half of 2016:
1. The ENERGY McSorley brought to the 2nd half of the Gator Bowl. McSorley converting multiple 4th downs in the 4th quarter, a couple of them on pure GRIT. If you were McSorley's teammate, you couldn't help but have that rub off to some degree.
2. McSorley (and the rest of the team) still giving a damn in the 2nd half of the Michigan game, even if they were down 49-10. He showed leadership that day even in the midst of a blowout.
Both those games were losses. But (admittedly, this is really only seen in retrospect) - those losses produced seeds that blossomed into flowers further down the line.
I don't think you understand what off man coverage is. Just because a corner isn't playing press does not mean he isn't playing man coverage. I also don't know what you mean by "soft zone" as opposed to "zone." On the 4th down pass to Lewis, the lower defender flowed with the a receiver running a shallower pattern. That helped open a window to hit Lewis. How does that make the coverage a "soft zone" as opposed to regular zone? Moreover, I don't know how on some of the runs you are able to tell if they are playing man or zone. First, the camera angles don't show the whole secondary. Second, defenses disguise their coverages so its often times not clear if they are in man, zone or some combo of the two until the receivers are in their routes. So I don't know how you are arriving at your conclusions. It appears you are making assumptions off of pre-snap alignments that don't tell the whole story.
You also said Georgia was playing zone on the TD pass. If that was the case, why are there three defenders in the area? I will tell you why. It's because Georgia is playing man against Hamilton with safety help. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the announcer on the TD pass. He said Georgia was playing man under 2 deep. That's different than zone in the way I believe you are using the term.
Regardless, I said in my initial post that I had not watched the game in a while. My larger point was that Georgia was playing the same style of defense in the first half and second half (which appears to be a mixture of man and zone). The notion that they backed off and gave us easy throws in the second half is wrong.
Last edited:
exactly- Hack didn't leave early because he wanted to- he wasn't going to start, and I'm certain he knew it
okay on the 4 th down play, the safeties ar 17 yrs deep at the snap of the ball, the corners are 8-9 yds deep on the snap, just because some dumb ass gets moved out of position by the QB doesn't mean they are playing man. The reason I know? Look at there eyes! They are in the backfield not on the man! The TD they are in zone. Here's the 4th down play, and if you can't see where they are soft, you need to look at the tape again.
Dude, I am not arguing that they were playing man on the fourth down play. They actually appear to be playing a hybrid type coverage of man (under) and zone on top. (The underneath defender and LB appear to be playing man while the corner and safety play zone). I don’t see how a hybrid coverage makes it a soft zone in the way you suggest. And Georgia is not playing zone on the TD play. You just don’t understand what your are looking at. Listen to the color commentator not me. He will corroborate what I am saying. (Hawkins is the former head coach at Boise State and others so I think he knows what he is talking about).
Last edited:
Gruden blaming CBA for cutting Hack...
Also, sounds like Hack’s meeting with New England
Raiders' Jon Gruden blames CBA for QB Christian Hackenberg's struggles - ESPN https://apple.news/AFZu004zzSq6UElX7Jw7hmg
Also, sounds like Hack’s meeting with New England
Raiders' Jon Gruden blames CBA for QB Christian Hackenberg's struggles - ESPN https://apple.news/AFZu004zzSq6UElX7Jw7hmg
dude really?on the 4th down play? they are playing zone (very soft) with the freaking safeties aligned at 17 yds on the snap! and the the corners at at least 7 yds! Look at their eyes and shoulders!! They are facing the QB's!!
On the TD play they play a form of Tampa 2 with the safeties on the hash and the middle guy controls the middle, when the middle is threatened, he is to run with the threat (and that's why it looks like man to man, and is why there are 3 guys near the ball, the 2 half field guys and the middle 'Tampa 2' guy).
Dude it is not me that doesn't know what they are looking at.
why don't you ask Dan if they are in 2 man, why the 2 inside LBers don't go with a man, but keep their eyes in the back field. Watch the end zone view on replay
I want you to watch #36 for Georgia on the TD. That is Rico McGraw (a DB). At the snap, he immediately runs with Hamilton. That’s because his assignment was to cover Hamilton one on one. I think your getting confused by the hybrid nature of some of Georgia’s coverage schemes. Just in case you don’t know, a coverage scheme can have both zone and man concepts. In other words, different players are playing different techniques. On that play, Hamilton is covered man on man by McGraw with safeties over the top. Hence, man under 2 deep. You can think whatever you want. Dan Hawkins and I think otherwise.
As far as your Tampa 2 comments, who is the Mike backer on that play? I am pretty sure it’s #3 Roquan Smith. (McSorley appears to identify him as the Mike by pointing at him prior to the snap so the line can set its protections). At the snap, Smith flows with the Barkley towards the sideline, which tells me he probably had the RB man on man. Now, I never played against a Tampa 2 scheme but I am pretty sure the Mike backer doesn’t normally vacate the middle like that. Rather, he takes a deeper than normal drop and roams the middle of the field.
We can agree to disagree. I am done with this discussion.
Last edited:
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Another note on the TaxSlayer Bowl - Mark Richt just left and that game featured a new HC, OC, and DC (they appointed passing game coordinator and wide receivers coach Bryan McClendon as HC, tight ends coach John Lilly as OC, and outside linebackers coach Kevin Sherrer as DC). I don't know how big of a deal that ended up being but there is some impact, noting Richt was not just a program figurehead.
Dude really? in a Tampa 2 type coverage,someone's job is to control the middle of the field, it could be the LB or in this case it is #36 , ( Watch him before the snap get into a position to wall off anyone down the middle). If they are playing man under, no way 36 is in position to cover 5 on an out break, or heck for that matter if 5 comes across the middle. Its only because 5 runs down the middle of the field 36 stays with him. Watch 14, if they are in man, or man under, who is he covering? He tries to collision his receiver and stands there. Look at the corner at the top of the screen, he is in zone as well. as far as the LBers go, the only reason 3 moves is because 26 is in the game, if 24,25, 32 etc were in the game at the same position, 3 doesnt move at all.
Just because you dont understand the coverage, doesnt mean they arent playing it.
and getting back to your original premise, that UGA played man free in the second half, ('I am a film junkie. Georgia didn’t play a soft defense in the second half (especially in Q4). I haven’t looked at the film In a long time but I am almost certain they played man free coverage (man coverage with a safety over the top))
I have seen only 1 snap of man free from where I started my break down (12:56? 4th qtr), up to this TD.
as I pointed out with the very first clip, UGA was very soft.
Dude, you are entitled to your opinion. I understand you probably read an articles at one point about a Tampa 2 coverage scheme and you tried to work it into conversation like you know what you are talking about. I don’t think you do. For example, if what you are saying is true, then a safety who is off the line of scrimmage could never be assigned to cover a slot one on one. That makes no sense. IMO opinion, #36 is not reading anything post snap. He is focused solely on Hamilton because that is his guy on that play. We disagree, Dude. We have said our peace. Why do you care what I think at this point? Thank you for attaching the video. I haven’t looked at it in a long time. As far as my comments in response to my posts, I am quite confident with everything I said. Good day.
Last edited:
and I am more then confident in what I post. As I said, just because you dont understand the D, doesnt mean they werent playing it. For the record, you dont learn much from reading an article, its better to log hours in the film room, which I have. BTW who is 14 covering?
Good Day.
Whatever coverage Georgia was playing, the 4th quarter was probably the best the offense looked all year. And that was against a good SEC team.
And I can’t see how anyone can argue that Hackenberg was a better college QB than Trace.
It isn’t even close.
And I can’t see how anyone can argue that Hackenberg was a better college QB than Trace.
It isn’t even close.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-