And nice to see that Jackson was the playmaker on both picks. The man is a total ball hawk.View: https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/1430197641938411521?s=20
Picks be damned, a 75% completion rate looks adequate.
Can he block better than Tebow?Patriots picking up Kahale Warring, tight end.
View attachment 43717
Warring was a former water polo player who has exceptional athleticism but was learning to play the position still. He likely is more of a receiving TE and one who could benefit from the practice squad. I liked him coming out as someone to develop because tight end is such a crapshoot. He's the longest of long shots but an interesting pick up given his athletic profile.
View: https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/1430197641938411521?s=20
Picks be damned, a 75% completion rate looks adequate.
Was Joe Kennedy III there? I have so many questions… do we know if it was a player who threw it? That is one of the stranger things I’ve read this preseason.
FWIW, I'm listening to the Sports Hub and Zolak is watching the practice from their broadcast spot at Gillette. He seemed to mention that Wynn and Agholor left due to heat issues.Today is going well. NA & Wynn both left the field, under their own power, but very excited to see Mac tearing it up with the 1's.
That's what others say as well.FWIW, I'm listening to the Sports Hub and Zolak is watching the practice from their broadcast spot at Gillette. He seemed to mention that Wynn and Agholor left due to heat issues.
Don KoharskiWas Joe Kennedy III there? I have so many questions… do we know if it was a player who threw it? That is one of the stranger things I’ve read this preseason.
I need a ruling - where does "music to my ears" rank on the way too far scale?
Agree. It amazes me that BB continues to kiss Cam’s and vice versa.I was expecting this, but I'm still not happy about it.
View: https://twitter.com/MarkDanielsPJ/status/1430900379454042122?s=20
Pretty sure I indicated I was expecting it, which does not mean I am 'shocked' by this news - yet I am still within my rights to be unhappy about the choice.Cam's the starting QB. What is there to be shocked about?
As much as Jones has exceeded expectations, Cam's effort in the Eagles game was as good as ever in a Pats uni. I'm a bit disappointed but fine with this.Agree. It amazes me that BB continues to kiss Cam’s and vice versa.
I like this decision from a competitive stand point. Mac Jones still has the opportunity to outplay Cam Newton. Cam will likely cannibalize the reps with the 1's in practice today. If Cam performs poorly today and Mac does well with available reps, does Mac get the start on Sunday?I was expecting this, but I'm still not happy about it.
View: https://twitter.com/MarkDanielsPJ/status/1430900379454042122?s=20
There was also a lot of chatter about how lousy the Giants defense looked yesterday. Playing Cam against their 1's today gives some perspective on Mac's performance yesterday.I like this decision from a competitive stand point. Mac Jones still has the opportunity to outplay Cam Newton. Cam will likely cannibalize the reps with the 1's in practice today. If Cam performs poorly today and Mac does well with available reps, does Mac get the start on Sunday?
Howe is "live" tweeting, Cam went 2/3 w/ a TD in 7v7, Mac went 1/2 w/ a TD.There was also a lot of chatter about how lousy the Giants defense looked yesterday. Playing Cam against their 1's today gives some perspective on Mac's performance yesterday.
View: https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/1430914689979011073I just read that the Pats just dropped a bunch of passes on Mac's drive.
View: https://twitter.com/ezlazar/status/1430914039601901571
I think one of the drops was on another really good deep ball. I am glad that Mac’s arm strength does not seem to be an issue.View: https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/1430914689979011073
Yep that was the drive after the INT, 10-19 with 3 drops
One thing we can be sure of: BB's decision on who started in 7 on 7s has zero to do wtih kissing anyone's butt and 100% to do with what he thought would help the team win. You can imagine whatever WEEI narrative you want, but it's literally insane to question BB's approach at this point, imo.Agree. It amazes me that BB continues to kiss Cam’s and vice versa.
Also... if we're basing Mac being ready on practice/pre-season then we should probably take into account that Cam has been just as good. Mac has been really encouraging, it's a good thing, Cam is a guy they went out and got last year, and brought back this year because they've seen him in the NFL and think he could be a starter. He's going to get the tiebreaker over a guy who has never played in the league. If Jones is going to get the week 1 starting job it will be by clearly outperforming Cam by a good margin (or injury)One thing we can be sure of: BB's decision on who started in 7 on 7s has zero to do wtih kissing anyone's butt and 100% to do with what he thought would help the team win. You can imagine whatever WEEI narrative you want, but it's literally insane to question BB's approach at this point, imo.
or another covid issueAlso... if we're basing Mac being ready on practice/pre-season then we should probably take into account that Cam has been just as good. Mac has been really encouraging, it's a good thing, Cam is a guy they went out and got last year, and brought back this year because they've seen him in the NFL and think he could be a starter. He's going to get the tiebreaker over a guy who has never played in the league. If Jones is going to get the week 1 starting job it will be by clearly outperforming Cam by a good margin (or injury)
Agreed. From a depth/options perspective Cam starting is the default decision absent clear reason to believe Jones gives a better chance to win. I also suspect that's the right choice for the long-term development of Jones, but that depends on a lot of things I don't know for sure (though which are true of vast majority of rookie QBs)Also... if we're basing Mac being ready on practice/pre-season then we should probably take into account that Cam has been just as good. Mac has been really encouraging, it's a good thing, Cam is a guy they went out and got last year, and brought back this year because they've seen him in the NFL and think he could be a starter. He's going to get the tiebreaker over a guy who has never played in the league. If Jones is going to get the week 1 starting job it will be by clearly outperforming Cam by a good margin (or injury)
The biggest takeaway of the day was Newton regained his spot in the leadoff role, giving off the appearance nothing has changed in the race for the No. 1 job despite Jones’ success in his absence. And even though it was circumstantial, Jones got a ton more reps than Newton, and it was clearly by design that they were all against the Giants’ starting defense. On Wednesday night, the coaching staffs discussed how they’d play their personnel and exchanged requests for the personnel they’d like to see on the other side. While it does matter who goes first, that meaning is curbed a bit when the quarterbacks are taking on the same personnel.
If they believe there are enough intangible factors to rule for Newton over Jones, that’s the direction they’ll ultimately take in a couple weeks when they prepare to host the Dolphins at Gillette Stadium.
But the rookie element won’t apply. Jones has been getting to Gillette at 4:30 a.m. throughout camp and spending 16-18 hours per day at the facility. He has worn out Brian Hoyer’s phone number and McDaniels’ ear. He’s even been studying the Patriots’ defensive playbook to gain an edge in practice.
“I give him credit for that,” Dont’a Hightower said. “The kid works hard.”
Compare their training camp workloads in team drills (11-on-11s and seven-on-sevens):
Mac Jones
• 16 competitive practices (not including three walkthroughs)
• 243 of 351 (69.2 completion percentage)
• Adjusted accuracy rate (17 drops): 74.1 percent
• Six interceptions (1.7 percent of throws)
Cam Newton
• 13 competitive practices (not including three walkthroughs)
• 135 of 210 (64.3 completion percentage)
• Adjusted accuracy rate (nine drops): 68.6 percent
• Eight interceptions (3.8 percent of throws)
As long as teams play their backups at every position like the Eagles did, Cam will be just fine.I don't know, comparing stat lines from joint practices and competitive drills don't mean a lot to me. Just too many variables, no?
As much as I am hopeful & excited about Jones, I absolutely loved what I saw from Cam during the first 2 pre-season games. As Kyed & Lazar both mentioned, those appearances (especially versus the Eagles) may have been Newton's best in a Pats uniform.
The fact that Cam refuses to get vaccinated p*sses me off to no end. Other than that, I'd be happy to see him start game 1.
I think this may very well be Bill's line of thinking, but I disagree with it. You see it in companies all the time, if a young guy shows similar aptitude to perform the job of and older, more expensive colleague, he's the one you want in the position, even if it'll take him a while to get acclimated. I'd invert the logic to say there's no reason to start Cam unless he gives a clear indication in practice he's the one who gives you a better chance to win. If they are performing similarly and one guy will be there long term and the other won't, why postpone the process? I think the team and the coaching are more than good enough to not give Mac career-altering PTSD if he struggles early (and I'm skeptical of the whole idea of QBs being "ruined" by starting too early in general).Agreed. From a depth/options perspective Cam starting is the default decision absent clear reason to believe Jones gives a better chance to win. I also suspect that's the right choice for the long-term development of Jones, but that depends on a lot of things I don't know for sure (though which are true of vast majority of rookie QBs)
I don't think that's a good comp, because of 2 things:I think this may very well be Bill's line of thinking, but I disagree with it. You see it in companies all the time, if a young guy shows similar aptitude to perform the job of and older, more expensive colleague, he's the one you want in the position, even if it'll take him a while to get acclimated. I'd invert the logic to say there's no reason to start Cam unless he gives a clear indication in practice he's the one who gives you a better chance to win. If they are performing similarly and one guy will be there long term and the other won't, why postpone the process? I think the team and the coaching are more than good enough to not give Mac career-altering PTSD if he struggles early (and I'm skeptical of the whole idea of QBs being "ruined" by starting too early in general).
I don't know, are your competitors having success putting college-grad wiz kids on those positions basically every year in your scenario? Rookie QBs fail a lot too, but they start often enough to make this analogy flawed. It's already the way the market operates, Bill wouldn't be bucking any trends.I don't think that's a good comp, because of 2 things:
1. The NFL is an inherently short term business, you turn over a good portion of the employees every year, and each year has 1 key end deliverable.
2. there is far less clarity on whether someone who has never done the job can do the job. Mac is a college graduate who was a summer intern doing simple tasks. You usually wouldn't fire a key employee on an important project for a no-experience college grad.
Depends what we mean by competitors. If we mean potential playoff teams... no very few are, and even fewer successfully. We have discussed it a bunch, but rookie QBs by and large suck. Now you could argue maybe Bill cares more about getting Mac experience than making the playoffs, but I really doubt that based both on what we know about him and how this roster is built heavily around vets on short deals.I don't know, are your competitors having success putting college-grad wiz kids on those positions basically every year in your scenario? Rookie QBs fail a lot too, but they start often enough to make this analogy flawed. It's already the way the market operates, Bill wouldn't be bucking any trends.