Page 7 of 9
Re: Hackenberg to Turn Pro
Posted: January 7th, 2016, 9:51 pm
by KirkHerbstreit
Hack should have thanked Franklin for not benching him. He was terrible the past two years. Could it be coaching? Sure, but why did he praise Donovan and Rahne that much then? Those were the guys who spent the most time with him. The bottom line is the kid stayed and stuck with the University, but he stunk. He has the talent and measurables, but sometimes you need to have football iq. I am not sure he has that or that it can be coached. Franklin basically risked his career sticking by the kid, but he was in a no win situation. What are you going to do bench the guy everyone thought was going in the first round? It was a no win situation and Penn State will be better off that he is gone. I watched more poise and better throws in 2 quarters from Mcsorely that I have not seen in two years from Hackenberg
Re: Hackenberg to Turn Pro
Posted: January 7th, 2016, 9:55 pm
by konjo78
Re: Hackenberg to Turn Pro
Posted: January 8th, 2016, 9:51 am
by ElMoldova
True words aren't eloquent.
Eloquent words aren't true.
Wise men don't need to prove their point.
Men who need to prove their point aren't wise.
Re: Hackenberg to Turn Pro
Posted: January 8th, 2016, 10:31 am
by 12HankQB
I like this, except for lawyers.
Re: Hackenberg to Turn Pro
Posted: January 8th, 2016, 3:21 pm
by Birda
Jamie Dixon's career .731 win percentage isn't enough for Konjo. It should be at least...THREE TIMES THIS SIZE! That complaint can't even be taken seriously.
I'm not sure which type of yinzer is worse: those who think Dixon should be fired every year, those that think Tomlin should be fired every year, or those that think Fleury should be traded.
Re: Hackenberg to Turn Pro
Posted: January 8th, 2016, 3:38 pm
by konjo78
My point about dixon is this.... pitt basketball pre 2010 was a whole lot better than pitt basketball post 2010...... and a lot of that has to do with coaching.
Re: Hackenberg to Turn Pro
Posted: January 8th, 2016, 3:47 pm
by Birda
konjo78 wrote:My point about dixon is this.... pitt basketball pre 2010 was a whole lot better than pitt basketball post 2010...... and a lot of that has to do with coaching.
Between 2000 and 2010 they won 2.5 more games per year than since 2011. THE SKY IS FALLING!
Howland had two decent years.
Re: Hackenberg to Turn Pro
Posted: January 8th, 2016, 4:09 pm
by konjo78
Im talking jamie dixon era.... but add years he didnt coach
Re: Hackenberg to Turn Pro
Posted: January 8th, 2016, 4:39 pm
by Birda
Doesn't change things.
Re: Hackenberg to Turn Pro
Posted: January 8th, 2016, 4:50 pm
by konjo78
Dixon pre 2010 had 81% win percentage.... really good. After last season post 2010 win rate is 64%
A 17% drop in win percentage is a huge drop. I havent added this season, which i am very happy about but you can see why he should of been on the hotseat.