The Michael McCorkle "Mac" Jones Thread

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,913
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
True, but they were also protecting a lead on every drive in the second half after scoring on the first drive, and a 2 possession lead for a few of them. Safe throws are perfect. And on that first drive, there were 6 plays--4 passes and 2 runs, including a pass called on 4th and 1, when a FG would tie the game. Additionally, many of those passes were on 1st down--picking up 5, 6, 9 yards on 1st down is okay with me when protecting a lead.

It seems like they worked on getting Mac more comfortable yesterday with easy throws.

Jets are a top 10 pass defense this year by yards allowed (as are the Colts next week), so playing it safe is fine.
If that's the case then playing it safe almost cost them the game when they could have easily put it away with all the short field positions they were given.

If they dumbed down the offense and Mac was STILL not able to move the ball then that's even more of an indictment on Mac.

It's actually incredible that Rham had such a good game when the Jets knew 1) the run was coming and 2) Mac couldn't beat them.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
If that's the case then playing it safe almost cost them the game when they could have easily put it away with all the short field positions they were given.

If they dumbed down the offense and Mac was STILL not able to move the ball then that's even more of an indictment on Mac.

It's actually incredible that Rham had such a good game when the Jets knew 1) the run was coming and 2) Mac couldn't beat them.
The blame for the offense should not solely fall on Mac. The offensive line was absolutely putrid yesterday and gave him next to no time to throw. They had to go to their quick hitters because there was no time for stuff to develop down the field.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
If that's the case then playing it safe almost cost them the game when they could have easily put it away with all the short field positions they were given.

If they dumbed down the offense and Mac was STILL not able to move the ball then that's even more of an indictment on Mac.

It's actually incredible that Rham had such a good game when the Jets knew 1) the run was coming and 2) Mac couldn't beat them.
It's not like the line was opening up holes for RB's all day and Mac was standing around for 5 seconds on every drop back. Stevenson broke the long carry for 35 yards but other than that he and Harris gained 73 yards on 26 carries. It wasn't a good day for them either.
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,391
Right. In year one he looked like the guy who was going to make consistently great decisions and reads and all indicia were that he was doing well there; while we don't have all the information it seems like he's not at good at that stuff five games into his second year. Is it playing under pressure, being under pressure from a wonky line, bad game planning, bad playcalling, Jones being too aggressive trying to make plays in a way that can be reeled back, Jones being too aggressive trying to make plays in a way that can't be reeled back? Hard to tell. I did take yesterday as a moderate step forward in that he looked ok with not too many mistakes on the road against a good defense with his o-line struggling in a division game after having been benched quickly the previous week and coming off an injury. But ok obviously isn't good enough; he's got to at least get to "pretty decent with almost no mistakes" for this team to have a chance at winning playoff games.
In year 1, he looked like he could be Andy Dalton. In year 2, he looks like he’s Sam Darnold. I have advocated for giving him as much time/development as possible, and I think that’s through 2023. But he’s got to show some signs of improvement. Pocket presence, good decisions, chemistry with his receivers…none of which are happening now.

It will be interesting if they’re in a position to draft one of the toolsy guys in April, like Hooker or Richardson. They need help elsewhere obviously, but drafting of those guys might be with 2024 in mind.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
In year 1, he looked like he could be Andy Dalton. In year 2, he looks like he’s Sam Darnold. I have advocated for giving him as much time/development as possible, and I think that’s through 2023. But he’s got to show some signs of improvement. Pocket presence, good decisions, chemistry with his receivers…none of which are happening now.

It will be interesting if they’re in a position to draft one of the toolsy guys in April, like Hooker or Richardson. They need help elsewhere obviously, but drafting of those guys might be with 2024 in mind.
He played three games, got hurt, played 3 series in one game (poorly), and then played a fifth game. I think we could wait until maybe a fifth or sixth game in his second season before deciding that there's no hope.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
He played three games, got hurt, played 3 series in one game (poorly), and then played a fifth game. I think we could wait until maybe a fifth or sixth game in his second season before deciding that there's no hope.
I agree there isn't a no hope situation here, but people are treating it like he was a shining star down the stretch last year, which he definitely wasn't there was some tough tailoff, that got written off as tougher defenses, rookie wall, etc.

Mac has played 23 games in the NFL I split them 12/11 because he has thrown almost exactly the same number of passes in those 2 halves.

FIRST 12
CMP ATT CMP% Yards TD INT RATE Sack ANY/A
245 349 70.2 2540 14 8 94.73 22 6.63

LAST 11
CMP ATT CMP% Yards TD INT RATE Sack ANY/A
222 348 63.8 2486 13 14 80.7 20 5.75
 

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
870
Stumptown via Chelmsford
Isn't that part of the process of learning? Sure its disappointing to see - but its also a teachable moment for a young QB that needs to make good decisions to be successful.
It's also possible that it's a young QB trying to address the criticism from last year that he settled too often for easy, short throws when bigger plays were available to him. JT O'Sullivan from the QB School took Mac to task for that on several occasions.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
Who said there is no hope?
I kind of did.

But I also said that I don't know nothin', which is probably not something that needed saying around here.

People root in different ways and those things clash, more on BBTL than elsewhere. I root by getting my hopes way up, unrealistically. That has weird side effects. Some of you are way more rational.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Ok, yes it’s hyperbolic and yes they have tons of experience in the NFL. That said, they clearly didn’t have adequate experience for the job they are doing.now and the team is just as clearly suffering for it.

The O line is just as desperate for leadership and coaching, but that’s maybe their individual faults too.

I will also state the play calling and game planning doesn’t loom awful now either, it’s just the Mac damage seeems done.

Hopefully they can get Humpty Dumpty back together or next year is the 4th post Brady year 1 rebuild year.
This is ridiculous -- Zappe with the same coaches and less experience has had a 7.20 ANY/A across 92 attempts and 4 games, with two games against bottom tier defenses (1st is Lions at 8.3, while the Browns are tied at 7th at 7.0). Mac has 4.47 ANY/A with 138 attempts across 5 games, with two mediocre games against two bottom tier pass defenses (Miami's 4th worst by ANY/A at 7.2, Pittsburgh is 7th at 7.0).

At some level, one has to acknowledge that the supporting staff has been fine -- Mac Jones is currently not. I hope he improves, but his play is the primary cause.
 

Bowser

New Member
Sep 27, 2019
399
I'm with those who say Mac looks broken, that the league has likely adjusted to him, and that he's been below average for more than a dozen games. In last week's poll I voted to have him start, not because he'd earned the benefit of the doubt but rather because benching him would invite controversy the team simply didn't need.

Now, however, I'm convinced that fixing what ails him will not be a 3-4 game project. Yes, we beat the Jets, but I doubt there are five other teams we could have beaten with such poor QB play. The next step is not naming Zappe the starter but instead having an open competition for the job. Maybe this is unrealistic, but I've seen enough of Zappe to not want him rotting on the bench.
 

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
870
Stumptown via Chelmsford
I'm with those who say Mac looks broken, that the league has likely adjusted to him, and that he's been below average for more than a dozen games. In last week's poll I voted to have him start, not because he'd earned the benefit of the doubt but rather because benching him would invite controversy the team simply didn't need.

Now, however, I'm convinced that fixing what ails him will not be a 3-4 game project. Yes, we beat the Jets, but I doubt there are five other teams we could have beaten with such poor QB play. The next step is not naming Zappe the starter but instead having an open competition for the job. Maybe this is unrealistic, but I've seen enough of Zappe to not want him rotting on the bench.
I agree 100%. While Zappe might have faced much easier competition than Mac this season, it's striking to compare the two on an apples-to-apples basis, small sample notwithstanding. Zappe may not be the ultimate answer either, but the production gap between the two is striking.

Mac Jones vs. Bears (DVOA rank of 26): 0.0 points per drive (3 drives)
Mac Jones vs. Steelers (DVOA rank of 22): 1.9 points per drive (9 drives)
TOTAL: 1.41 points per drive (12 drives)

Bailey Zappe vs. Bears (DVOA rank of 26): 2.0 points per drive (7 drives)
Bailey Zappe vs Packers (DVOA rank of 22): 1.6 points per drive (9 drives)
TOTAL: 1.75 points per drive (16 drives)

Let's pause for a second to consider this. On an apples-to-apples basis, Mac in his 2nd year is getting outplayed by an undersized 3rd string rookie from a second tier college program. That's a pretty damning indictment of his play (and Zappe's numbers above are frankly not that impressive).

I wish I knew what BB's thinking was on this.

Best I can do is to listen to guys like Phil Perry (who I tend to think of as one of BB's media mouthpieces) who said on a podcast yesterday that Mac settled down in the second half, made some good throws and helped manage the game. It's a bit strange to hear all of the excuses being made for Mac (bordering on gaslighting if you listen to Bedard) when BB is famous for unsentimentally valuing open competition and on-the-field production regardless of pedigree.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
I agree 100%. While Zappe might have faced much easier competition than Mac this season, it's striking to compare the two on an apples-to-apples basis, small sample notwithstanding. Zappe may not be the ultimate answer either, but the production gap between the two is striking.

Mac Jones vs. Bears (DVOA rank of 26): 0.0 points per drive (3 drives)
Mac Jones vs. Steelers (DVOA rank of 22): 1.9 points per drive (9 drives)
TOTAL: 1.41 points per drive (12 drives)

Bailey Zappe vs. Bears (DVOA rank of 26): 2.0 points per drive (7 drives)
Bailey Zappe vs Packers (DVOA rank of 22): 1.6 points per drive (9 drives)
TOTAL: 1.75 points per drive (16 drives)

Let's pause for a second to consider this. On an apples-to-apples basis, Mac in his 2nd year is getting outplayed by an undersized 3rd string rookie from a second tier college program. That's a pretty damning indictment of his play (and Zappe's numbers above are frankly not that impressive).

I wish I knew what BB's thinking was on this.

Best I can do is to listen to guys like Phil Perry (who I tend to think of as one of BB's media mouthpieces) who said on a podcast yesterday that Mac settled down in the second half, made some good throws and helped manage the game. It's a bit strange to hear all of the excuses being made for Mac (bordering on gaslighting if you listen to Bedard) when BB is famous for unsentimentally valuing open competition and on-the-field production regardless of pedigree.
Why would I pause for even a second to consider an "apples to apples" comparison focussed on a small sample and using one stat reflective not of individual play but of team performance as a whole?
 
Last edited:

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
870
Stumptown via Chelmsford
Why would I pause for even a second to consider an "apples to apples" comparison focussed on a small sample and using one stat reflective not of individual play but of team performance as a whole?
QB's are ultimately judged on their ability to operate an offense and put up points. Efficiency (points per drive) correlates pretty well to quality of QB play. The most highly-regarded QB's all produce strong efficiency numbers (Mahomes is the best at 3.0+ and other top QB's are in the high 2's to low 3's). Any way you slice it, Mac's 2022 numbers over 5 games are atrocious. His full 2021-2022 numbers over 23 games are mediocre. It's also worth noting that all individual QB stats are dependent on team performance (pass blocking, receiver wingspan/speed/separation, field position, etc.).

The sample is what it is. It's an attempt to address the complaint that Zappe has faced inferior defenses than Mac by creating an apples-to-apples comparison (both playing against equally-ranked defenses).

Since the data doesn't meet your standards and your time is precious, feel free to disregard and move on.
 
Last edited:

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
QB's are ultimately judged on their ability to operate an offense and put up points. Efficiency (points per drive) correlates pretty well to quality of QB play. The most highly-regarded QB's all produce strong efficiency numbers (Mahomes is the best at 3.0+ and other top QB's are in the high 2's to low 3's). Any way you slice it, Mac's 2022 numbers over 5 games are atrocious. His full 2021-2022 numbers over 23 games are mediocre. It's also worth noting that all individual QB stats are dependent on team performance (pass blocking, receiver wingspan/speed/separation, field position, etc.).

The sample is what it is. It's an attempt to address the complaint that Zappe has faced inferior defenses than Mac by creating an apples-to-apples comparison (both playing against equally-ranked defenses).

Since the data doesn't meet your standards and your time is precious, feel free to disregard and move on.
The Patriots OL was an absolute disaster against the Jets, far worse than any prior performance this season. What have you seen from Zappe that says he could perform under a level of pressure that even Tom Brady would have struggled against?
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,824
Needham, MA
Zappe is not "rotting on the bench". He's a rookie who flashed briefly and then looked pretty bad the last time he was on the field. Maybe we found something with him, but the overwhelming likelihood is that he's not THAT much better than Mac. And anyway, he's a rookie 4th round pick who probably never thought he'd be active for an actual game, never mind be the full-time backup. He can benefit from being on the active roster, getting practice reps with the 2nd team, and maybe getting into a game here and there if Mac is hurt or shitting the bed. Brady wasn't even the 2nd string QB his rookie year, we are not losing out on the Bailey Zappe "era" by having him sit and learn for a bit.

Meanwhile, some here may have seen enough of Mac to make a decision, but apparently the GOAT coach hasn't. Mac has been shit and I'm not optimistic, but it's a perfectly defensible decision to keep throwing him out there to see if he improves. The team is going nowhere either way, if Mac gets enough reps for the coaching staff to make a decision on him either way this year, that's a positive development (shitty if he gets jettisoned after two seasons, but at least we know to cut bait and move on).
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
QB's are ultimately judged on their ability to operate an offense and put up points.
Are they?

I mean on the one hand it makes sense. But on the other..... Generally the QBs that are widely considered to be great have lots of passing yards and lots of passing touchdowns. But if the QB makes the correct check into a running play, or if the team runs it in from the 3 instead of passing it in, the results are the same for the offense, and yet the QBs stats don't look as good.

Last year, the Patriots were a top 10 offense in DVOA, and #6 in the league in scoring. Their OSRS (from pro-football-reference.com) was 3.6, ahead of Joe Burrow and Cincy's 3.4. They ran a very good offense overall, and Mac was at the helm for it. But in no way was he truly a top 6-10 quarterback last year. Or at least he wasn't considered to be one. No way was he considered on the same level as Joe Burrow, even though New England's offense last year was actually as good as or better than Cincinnati's.

So I am not sure your premise is true, even if it should be true.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Are they?

I mean on the one hand it makes sense. But on the other..... Generally the QBs that are widely considered to be great have lots of passing yards and lots of passing touchdowns. But if the QB makes the correct check into a running play, or if the team runs it in from the 3 instead of passing it in, the results are the same for the offense, and yet the QBs stats don't look as good.

Last year, the Patriots were a top 10 offense in DVOA, and #6 in the league in scoring. Their OSRS (from pro-football-reference.com) was 3.6, ahead of Joe Burrow and Cincy's 3.4. They ran a very good offense overall, and Mac was at the helm for it. But in no way was he truly a top 6-10 quarterback last year. Or at least he wasn't considered to be one. No way was he considered on the same level as Joe Burrow, even though New England's offense last year was actually as good as or better than Cincinnati's.

So I am not sure your premise is true, even if it should be true.
The Pats last year were a weird case because the offense was mediocre most weeks but had a handful of distorting, outlier, extreme positive performances (second Jets, Cleveland, Jacksonville). They scored 45+ three times yet only scored in the 30's once. I think Mac's reputation, and the true performance of the offense, is closer to the week-to-week standard that they generally met.

It's a good question what the media / public judges QB on. Tom Brady led the NFL in passing yards and TDs last year, but lost out on MVP to Aaron Rodgers, who finished 10th in yards and tied for 4th in TDs. I don't think yards really matter (nor should they). I think generally voters / public look at wins (which correlates to points, obviously not perfectly) and TD / INT ratio.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
I agree there isn't a no hope situation here, but people are treating it like he was a shining star down the stretch last year, which he definitely wasn't there was some tough tailoff, that got written off as tougher defenses, rookie wall, etc.

Mac has played 23 games in the NFL I split them 12/11 because he has thrown almost exactly the same number of passes in those 2 halves.

FIRST 12
CMP ATT CMP% Yards TD INT RATE Sack ANY/A
245 349 70.2 2540 14 8 94.73 22 6.63

LAST 11
CMP ATT CMP% Yards TD INT RATE Sack ANY/A
222 348 63.8 2486 13 14 80.7 20 5.75
Those numbers match about what I would expect without looking them up, a pretty clear step down in the quality of play. I think we would all feel a lot better if the samples were reversed and the first half of his career was the more recent half.

To me the jury is still very much out, but the final 9 games of the season are going to be extraordinarily important.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Those numbers match about what I would expect without looking them up, a pretty clear step down in the quality of play. I think we would all feel a lot better if the samples were reversed and the first half of his career was the more recent half.

To me the jury is still very much out, but the final 9 games of the season are going to be extraordinarily important.
Basically agree.

Wasn't there a Bill Walsh statement along the lines of you can't tell if someone can be an NFL quarterback until they've started 35 games? Which I would put differently as after two full seasons you do have a pretty good idea of where someone is and it's very unusual for someone to show you more later in their career than they were showing you in the starts 30-35. So even if you cut him a little slack for the injury and the OC transition then at best you're making a decision on him early next season.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
Basically agree.

Wasn't there a Bill Walsh statement along the lines of you can't tell if someone can be an NFL quarterback until they've started 35 games? Which I would put differently as after two full seasons you do have a pretty good idea of where someone is and it's very unusual for someone to show you more later in their career than they were showing you in the starts 30-35. So even if you cut him a little slack for the injury and the OC transition then at best you're making a decision on him early next season.
I would say that guys can show you more later than the end of year 2, but usually those are guys who show significant improvement year 1 to year 2.
 

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
870
Stumptown via Chelmsford
The Patriots OL was an absolute disaster against the Jets, far worse than any prior performance this season. What have you seen from Zappe that says he could perform under a level of pressure that even Tom Brady would have struggled against?
That's quite the hyperbolic statement. Tom Brady would have struggled against that level of pressure? Really? Was Mac constantly getting pressured up the middle in that game? Is Brady known for holding on to the ball too long while being antsy in the pocket?

I have no idea how Zappe would have fared against the Jets, which is why I tried to compare him and Mac against common/comparable opponents. What may have helped Zappe is going through his reads more quickly and navigating the pocket better. I can also concede that he may not be the ultimate answer at QB. But stepping back for a second, it's absolutely surreal to me that we've entered this bizzaro-world where Mac perma-apologists like yourself feel the need to pacify themselves by demeaning the 3rd string backup. The case for defending Mac this season is literally so weak that we need to sh!t on the undersized, noodle-armed, lightly-recruited 3rd string rookie with a grand total of roughly 14 quarters in 4 games of NFL experience. We're not making excuses for Zappe's numbers against the Packers and Bears like, for instance, he didn't get all of the 1st team reps in practice prior to those games or perhaps even know that he was going to be playing.

Let's be clear. The argument that Mac is a better choice than Zappe in no way suggests that he's justified being handed the starting job this season with his play on the field.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Let's be clear. The argument that Mac is a better choice than Zappe in no way suggests that he's justified being handed the starting job this season with his play on the field.
What does this even mean? If he's better than Zappe he should be the starter this season. If he doesn't start playing better than absolutely the team should start looking into making a change for 2023 if someone potentially better is available. Am I missing something?
 

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
870
Stumptown via Chelmsford
Are they?

I mean on the one hand it makes sense. But on the other..... Generally the QBs that are widely considered to be great have lots of passing yards and lots of passing touchdowns. But if the QB makes the correct check into a running play, or if the team runs it in from the 3 instead of passing it in, the results are the same for the offense, and yet the QBs stats don't look as good.

Last year, the Patriots were a top 10 offense in DVOA, and #6 in the league in scoring. Their OSRS (from pro-football-reference.com) was 3.6, ahead of Joe Burrow and Cincy's 3.4. They ran a very good offense overall, and Mac was at the helm for it. But in no way was he truly a top 6-10 quarterback last year. Or at least he wasn't considered to be one. No way was he considered on the same level as Joe Burrow, even though New England's offense last year was actually as good as or better than Cincinnati's.

So I am not sure your premise is true, even if it should be true.
I think Super Nomario addressed your points better than I could. I can't speak to the DVOA and OSRS stats and how they are calculated. Last season, Mac's offense put up 2.66 points per drive, which is pretty good, and outstanding for a rookie QB. I'd guess that, in the modern NFL, 2.66 points per drive is probably just inside or just outside of the top 10. But, as Super Nomario pointed out, those numbers were goosed by the 2nd Jets, Browns and Jaguars games. The Mac-led offense's median points per drive last season was 2.1, which I suspect was not in the top third of the league.
 
Last edited:

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
870
Stumptown via Chelmsford
What does this even mean? If he's better than Zappe he should be the starter this season. If he doesn't start playing better than absolutely the team should start looking into making a change for 2023 if someone potentially better is available. Am I missing something?
Ever heard the expression "best athlete in the band" or "best-looking Hell's Angel"? Beating out the unheralded rookie is a pretty low bar to clear.

It's possible for two things to be true at the same time: (1) he's ahead of Zappe on the depth chart for whatever reason and (2) he's played like sh!t this season after his performance faded down the stretch last season. It's time for him to turn it around.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
I think Super Nomario addressed your points better than I could. I can't speak to the DVOA and OSRS stats and how they are calculated. Last season, Mac's offense put up 2.66 points per drive, which is pretty good, and outstanding for a rookie QB. I'd guess that, in the modern NFL, 2.66 points per drive is probably just inside or just outside of the top 10. But, as Super Nomario pointed out, those numbers were goosed by the 2nd Jets, Browns and Jaguars games. The Mac-led offense's median points per drive last season was 2.1, which I suspect was not in the top third of the league.
I get it, but do we make the same analysis of every other team's offensive output, or do we just tend to look at the overall numbers? I've never seen this kind of breakdown (how many "huge" games other teams/QBs have that make it look like they're better than they are) done for other teams, and it makes sense why - we follow the Patriots and analyze them ad nauseam.

I mean, the Bengals had three games where they scored 41 points last year. The Chiefs had three games where they scored 48, 42, and 41 points. Dallas had two games in the 50s. Tampa had games of 48, 45, and 41. Buffalo had games of 45, 43, and 40.

Why do we just discount Mac and the Pats' offensive performance because they had some big games that skewed the overall numbers, but we don't do the same for other teams?
 

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
870
Stumptown via Chelmsford
I get it, but do we make the same analysis of every other team's offensive output, or do we just tend to look at the overall numbers? I've never seen this kind of breakdown (how many "huge" games other teams/QBs have that make it look like they're better than they are) done for other teams, and it makes sense why - we follow the Patriots and analyze them ad nauseam.

I mean, the Bengals had three games where they scored 41 points last year. The Chiefs had three games where they scored 48, 42, and 41 points. Dallas had two games in the 50s. Tampa had games of 48, 45, and 41. Buffalo had games of 45, 43, and 40.

Why do we just discount Mac and the Pats' offensive performance because they had some big games that skewed the overall numbers, but we don't do the same for other teams?
It's a matter of degree. Mac had 3 games last year with a points per drive number above 5. Burrow had just 1. But Mac also had 8 games with a points per drive number of 2.0 or below. Burrow had 5. Mac's median points per drive in the regular season was 2.2. Burrow's was 2.61. I think we could see how the median number would be more meaningful or insightful.

In an ideal world we would have a QB stat that combined baseball's WAR and basketball's +/-, something that took into account field position, quality of opponent, etc. In the absence of that, I think efficiency (points per drive) is a pretty decent shorthand for evaluating our QB play. I'll start focusing on median numbers going forward.

Just for the record, Mac's median points per drive this year is 1.83 (Zappe's is 2.38). Time for Mac to step it the f*** up.
 
Last edited:

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
It's a matter of degree. Mac had 3 games last year with a points per drive number above 5. Burrow had just 1. Mac's median points per drive in the regular season was 2.2. Burrow's was 2.61. I think we could see how the median number would be more meaningful or insightful.

In an ideal world we would have a QB stat that combined baseball's WAR and basketball's +/-, something that took into account field position, quality of opponent, etc. In the absence of that, I think efficiency (points per drive) is a pretty decent shorthand for evaluating our QB play. I'll start focusing on median numbers going forward.

And to all of Mac's relatives on this board, please tell him to step it the f*** up.
I'm not sure who you're fighting with or who you think is being so protective of Mac that you need to take a bit of a shot at them but I think literally every single poster thinks Mac has been at least kind of shitty this year.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
The Should Have Been Pick 6 makes these takes hard agree with these takes. I don't care if it was a wrong route by the WR, you have to actually be able to see there's nobody wearing white in the area before you release the ball. He was starting right at the play in front of him. That one pick six decision more than offsets whatever good you can find. You CANNOT have a QB making those decisions every single game, particularly those games when the opposing QB is Zach Wilson. Protect the ball.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
The Should Have Been Pick 6 makes these takes hard agree with these takes. I don't care if it was a wrong route by the WR, you have to actually be able to see there's nobody wearing white in the area before you release the ball. He was starting right at the play in front of him. That one pick six decision more than offsets whatever good you can find. You CANNOT have a QB making those decisions every single game, particularly those games when the opposing QB is Zach Wilson. Protect the ball.
I've stayed out of this mostly because I'm confident that I don't know shit. But I do know from watching the television that many pass patterns call for the throw to be made *before* the WR makes his cut. Many a great QB has thrown an out route directly to the opposing CB because the receiver cut inside not outside. Was this one of those? I don't know. But I'm pretty confident that "the QB has to see no opponents in the area before he releases the ball" is not an accurate description of high-level NFL QB play.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
I've stayed out of this mostly because I'm confident that I don't know shit. But I do know from watching the television that many pass patterns call for the throw to be made *before* the WR makes his cut. Many a great QB has thrown an out route directly to the opposing CB because the receiver cut inside not outside. Was this one of those? I don't know. But I'm pretty confident that "the QB has to see no opponents in the area before he releases the ball" is not an accurate description of high-level NFL QB play.
Yes, but we have tape on it... Meyers had already made the decision on the option route before Mac threw it. Also, it was a terrible read of the coverage if he thought the WR was going to break INTO the defender.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Yes, but we have tape on it... Meyers had already made the decision on the option route before Mac threw it. Also, it was a terrible read of the coverage if he thought the WR was going to break INTO the defender.
I thought I had read somewhere that there was some sort of miscommunication on the play. Maybe it was a different one. I think my other point about "not throwing until . . . ." stands, though.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
I thought I had read somewhere that there was some sort of miscommunication on the play. Maybe it was a different one. I think my other point about "not throwing until . . . ." stands, though.
Yeah, there was... in the sense that Mac for some reason made a bad decision, locked into it... AND threw late. It was a really really bad play. The later point I was agreeing with, it just wasn't really applicable in this situation.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
You CANNOT have a QB making those decisions every single game, particularly those games when the opposing QB is Zach Wilson. Protect the ball.
Yes, obviously on your first sentence.

But on your second sentence, the Patriots and Mac did protect the ball and there were posts complaining about his average target distance. Not saying you, just saying that Mac is apparently going to be a lightning rod because he's the guy after The Guy. And yes, I'm sure whichever poster says he's not anti-Mac because of *that* reason is 100% correct, I meant the other poster.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
I've stayed out of this mostly because I'm confident that I don't know shit. But I do know from watching the television that many pass patterns call for the throw to be made *before* the WR makes his cut. Many a great QB has thrown an out route directly to the opposing CB because the receiver cut inside not outside. Was this one of those? I don't know. But I'm pretty confident that "the QB has to see no opponents in the area before he releases the ball" is not an accurate description of high-level NFL QB play.
Evan Lazar talks about one of Mac's weaknesses in the new scheme is he's not consistently throwing the ball before the target makes the cut.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Yes, but we have tape on it... Meyers had already made the decision on the option route before Mac threw it. Also, it was a terrible read of the coverage if he thought the WR was going to break INTO the defender.
I think it's cover three the outside corner is going back and the WR should break out; Mac thought he was faking in and cutting out, Jacoby just sat, and Jones was kind of eighty percent done with his throw at that point and lofted a shitty one. I think it would have been ok if Jacoby had made a good hard cut outside.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
I've stayed out of this mostly because I'm confident that I don't know shit. But I do know from watching the television that many pass patterns call for the throw to be made *before* the WR makes his cut. Many a great QB has thrown an out route directly to the opposing CB because the receiver cut inside not outside. Was this one of those? I don't know. But I'm pretty confident that "the QB has to see no opponents in the area before he releases the ball" is not an accurate description of high-level NFL QB play.
My guess is Mac was wrong. I plead ignorance on the X's and O's but it looked to me like Meyers ran the route to open space while Mac threw it towards 3 Jets. Even if Meyers broke outside it's a bad throw and bad read by both players.

I think QB's typically try to diagnose coverages pre-snap and have an idea of where they want to throw the ball. Post-snap, they are supposed to confirm what they saw before pulling the trigger. This feels like a case where Mac may have been fooled by the pre-snap alignment and didn't confirm what he was seeing before pulling the trigger.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I think it's cover three the outside corner is going back and the WR should break out; Mac thought he was faking in and cutting out, Jacoby just sat, and Jones was kind of eighty percent done with his throw at that point and lofted a shitty one. I think it would have been ok if Jacoby had made a good hard cut outside.
The defender was below Meyers though. If he cuts out, the defender is still between Mac and Meyers. There's just no way at the point of the throw that throwing it to that spot would result in a pass the defender couldn't make a play on.

I think the most charitable reading for Mac would be that Meyers screwed up and then Mac kind of panicked and threw it anyway, which is still not a great look.

Versus zone, anyway, receivers on an option route should sit in the hole. Hard breaks in/out are for man to man.


I get it, but do we make the same analysis of every other team's offensive output, or do we just tend to look at the overall numbers? I've never seen this kind of breakdown (how many "huge" games other teams/QBs have that make it look like they're better than they are) done for other teams, and it makes sense why - we follow the Patriots and analyze them ad nauseam.
I looked through every team in 2021 and the Patriots had by far the most extreme split between their top three games and the bulk of their schedules.

I mean, the Bengals had three games where they scored 41 points last year. The Chiefs had three games where they scored 48, 42, and 41 points. Dallas had two games in the 50s. Tampa had games of 48, 45, and 41. Buffalo had games of 45, 43, and 40.

Why do we just discount Mac and the Pats' offensive performance because they had some big games that skewed the overall numbers, but we don't do the same for other teams?
Because all these teams were putting up points much more consistently than NE. The Bengals were probably closest, but their high games (barely into the 40s) weren't as high and they had four games in the 30s. The Chiefs had a 48 and THREE 42s and a 41 and six more in the 30s ... obviously they were performing at a much more consistent level on offense than the Patriots. Dallas had the two 50s but also three 40s and three 30s. Tampa had those three 40s but they scored 30+ in more than half their games (11). Buffalo had a 47 in the playoffs, and seven games in the 30s. Obviously these 40-burgers are a lot more representative of what they were giving week to week.

I get that you don't want to think the Patriots were unique here, but they were unique here. And it's even more dramatic if you look at something like Expected Points Added instead of points (which can be skewed by stuff like D/ST scores).
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,741
It's a matter of degree. Mac had 3 games last year with a points per drive number above 5. Burrow had just 1. But Mac also had 8 games with a points per drive number of 2.0 or below. Burrow had 5. Mac's median points per drive in the regular season was 2.2. Burrow's was 2.61. I think we could see how the median number would be more meaningful or insightful.

In an ideal world we would have a QB stat that combined baseball's WAR and basketball's +/-, something that took into account field position, quality of opponent, etc. In the absence of that, I think efficiency (points per drive) is a pretty decent shorthand for evaluating our QB play. I'll start focusing on median numbers going forward.

Just for the record, Mac's median points per drive this year is 1.83 (Zappe's is 2.38). Time for Mac to step it the f*** up.
PFF sorta tries to do some of what you describe. Mac currently ranks 37th of 38 quarterbacks according to their metrics.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
If those other teams that scored the same-ish number of points as the Patriots had more games in the 30s than NE, that also means they had more really bad games too.

KC: 48, 42, 41, 36, 35, 34, 33, 31, 31, 28, 24, 22, 20, 20, 19, 13, 3
50s: 0
40s: 3
30s: 6
20s: 5
10s: 2
1s: 1

Top 3 scores: 131 (43.7)
Bottom 3 scores: 35 (11.7)
Top 5 scores: 202 (40.4)
Bottom 5 scores: 75 (15.0)

NE: 54, 50, 45, 36, 29, 27, 25, 25, 25, 24, 24, 21, 17, 17, 17, 16, 14, 13
50s: 2
40s: 1
30s: 1
20s: 6
10s: 4
1s: 0

Top 3 scores: 149 (49.7)
Bottom 3 scores: 43 (14.3)
Top 5 scores: 214 (42.8)
Bottom 5 scores: 77 (15.4)

There's no doubt that KC (which we all agree was better and much more potent, even though they scored similar amounts of points - 480 for KC, 462 for NE) was better and more consistent. But they also put up a real stinker unlike anything NE did (the 3 point game at Ten).

The Patriots scored more points at the top end of the scale (either top 3 or top 5, whichever you prefer) AND at the bottom end of the scale (either top 3 or top 5, whichever you prefer). But KC was much better in the middle.