Let's say BB stays on until he retires. What does that mean for the franchise?

[BaseballJones]

They have the 10th oldest roster in football and just spent the most guaranteed money ever in a single offseason. If they go 7-10 with a rookie QB that's performing as well as you could reasonably expect in the "not costing you games" front, that's not good by any definition.

Spending the money isn't a good criterion for success. They spent the money because they had huge amounts of cap space available. They all knew this was coming. So it was inevitable that they would spend huge amounts of money this past offseason. And all that was to get the rest of the roster back to reasonable shape. If you have this team, with an OL that performs to what we all thought it would, and a HOF quarterback at the helm, it's a completely different team. As much as we are all excited about Mac Jones, he's still a rookie just five games into his career. That is the key to success moving forward - his development.

 

[SMU_Sox]

To me one of my issues with the spending spree wasn’t that there was an inefficiency in the market last year but rather he spent too much on positions when there are so many other holes this off-season. I wanted Bill to spend like he did in free agency. I thought he could get deals that would look good in 2023-24 and the cap those years. But my issue is there are glaring holes next year in the secondary, offensive-line, at ILB, and a few other roles and Bill has not much money and will need a handful of starters. That concerns me. Then when they didn’t draft guys at OT, CB, S high in the draft they exacerbated the situation going into 2022-2023. Now he might find solutions but it’s going to be a tight rope to walk.
And as much as I loved Cam McGrone’s fit here he is raw in anything but stopping the run. He has the traits to be a true steal but he has to develop. That’s never a given.

 

[rodderick]

Spending the money isn't a good criterion for success. They spent the money because they had huge amounts of cap space available. They all knew this was coming. So it was inevitable that they would spend huge amounts of money this past offseason. And all that was to get the rest of the roster back to reasonable shape. If you have this team, with an OL that performs to what we all thought it would, and a HOF quarterback at the helm, it's a completely different team. As much as we are all excited about Mac Jones, he's still a rookie just five games into his career. That is the key to success moving forward - his development.

They had huge amounts of money available in an offseason where everyone else was cap strained and could basically have their pick of available players. Wasn't that the grand plan? The reset after "selling out" for titles late in Brady's run? No one here expected them to turn into title contenders overnight, but expectations were firmly set at "playoff contender" for this team in August, even with a rookie QB. I always thought this season was all about Mac's development because you can't get anywhere in today's NFL without top tier QB play, but let's not set the bar low just so they can clear it: 7-10 isn't good enough. You can't go 7-9 with a horrible roster and Cam Newton at QB, spend hundreds of millions, get some key veterans back, get adequate at worst play from your rookie QB and finish the next season 7-10. I mean, you can, but it's not good at all.

 

[simplyeric]

If you're not going to trust Mac to get a short 1st down in OT then why the hell did you draft a rookie QB in the first place? If you're never going to give your rookie QB a chance to make plays then you shouldn't be playing him at all. You can't be playing not to lose.

The Patriots have only attempted three 4th down conversions this season. Middle of the pack is 8-9 attempts so far.

My guess is that BB isn't liking what he sees in practices for those situations.

 

[Cellar-Door]

All of what you said about Agholor and the current Pats team is true. I’d add to that though that in this offense the X often runs clearing routes and the inside guys are the straw that stirs the drink. Unless you have a truly dominant X who can easily win their 1:1s they are often not the first read or the guy Belichick and Josh want the QB targeting. Not always the case of course. Agholor has not always run the right route or ran his routes well either which adds to the problem. It’s a bad sign when you get benched for N’Keal Harry (just typing his name fills me with rage).

I didn't really like the agholor signing (I wanted Marvin Jones), I was just saying... that's who he is, a guy who gets open deep with an okay regularity, so if you hit him he'll catch some and get long TDs, and I think that is what Bellichick was thinking... this guy can get some long TDs, draw some attention and open up space for Smith and Meyers. It's not going well, both through line/QB issues and because... well Agholor isn't that good.

 

[Soxy]

Some good stuff in this thread.

I think I agree with all of this:

I think we actually agree more than disagree. My main point is that individual decisions have a lot of noise in them but overall going for it on fourth down when it is fourth and short from mid-field or around it is usually the right decision. For the 4th and 3 vs the Bucs is that decision model going to take account that Jon Jones is playing hobbled? Or that Tom Brady ran a two minute drill before the half and kicked a FG? Some might get at that others would not. I think you need to look at it as a big picture. There are yards and points left on the table by being too conservative and therefore you need to go for more fourth downs especially when the game context dictates to do it. Analytics can show you an area of opportunity. So you should know ok when my team gets close to mid-field and it’s fourth and 4 or less I should be going for it more often. I would have gone for it vs the Bucs and vs the Cowboys in OT. I wouldn’t need to look at a decision model for that because of the game situation and because I already know what those decision models are telling me: that coaches are consistently being too conservative on those downs and distances.
Does that make sense? Basically the more granular you get with models and stats in football the more skeptical I am of them and their accuracy but I also think you can get a lot from studying hundreds and thousands of decisions and understanding key takeaways from them.

My fear (perhaps irrational) is always that the models simply become the new crutch to lean on, which is the very thing that was bad about coaches relying on "conventional wisdom" and being overly conservative in the first place. It's a bad process because coaches aren't really even making decisions there at all. They're letting someone else make the decision, so that they have convenient cover to hide behind should things turn rotten. What kind of leader is that? Probably a bad one. It's taking the easy way out.

The last thing I want to see is a bad process get a fresh coat of paint, and coaches start doing whatever the models say because they're incapable of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. Models can give you data points to inform your decisions, but they're not decision makers. That's what the humans are for. Otherwise, you're just Michael Scott driving your car into a lake because the GPS told you to. Even the Ben Baldwins (4th down bot guy) of the world are aware of these limitations and acknowledge them, so that's not really a criticism of the models. It just is what it is.

Apropos of nothing, I loved the Bills decision to go for it against the Titans on Monday night. Made all the sense in the world to me. You're on the damn three yard line and get four more downs (time permitting) if you can pick up a yard. Kicking a FG there would seem borderline criminal to me, yet I still saw headlines about McDermott's "controversial" decision to go for it. I don't really see what's controversial. I haven't even looked at what the models said, but that seems about as no-brainer as you can get, barring an extenuating circumstance like your QB just got injured and has to sit out the play, or whatever.

 

[jk333]

Is there a rookie QB that people are thinking of when they talk about 9 wins in their first season? When you start a rookie, you lose.

I can provide a list of 1st rounders back to 2011:
.500 or Losing record in their first year: (20)

Trubisky, Darnold, Watson (3-3), Burrow, Mayfield, Kyler, Herbert, Jones, Goff, Wentz, Winston, Mariota, Manziel, Bortles, Tannehill, Allen, Bridgewater (6-6), Newton, Locker, Ponder and all of 2013’s class

Winning Record in their first year: (3)
Lamar, Luck, RG3

I didn’t count Mahomes because it was only 1 game.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

If you put a rookie first round QB on a good team it’s not unreasonable to hope for a winning record.

The real question is this: Did we put Mac on a good team? I think a lot of folks, including myself, may have been overly optimistic about the surrounding talent level. Some of that might have been inflated hopes for the FAs. But I think the even bigger issue is that older top players like High, McCourty, and Gilmore are either shadows of their former selves or gone while two key veteran offensive linchpins in Brown and White have been injured. If you knew going into the season that we’d be getting almost nothing from that group of five players, nobody would have thought this is a playoff team.

 

[lexrageorge]

To me one of my issues with the spending spree wasn’t that there was an inefficiency in the market last year but rather he spent too much on positions when there are so many other holes this off-season. I wanted Bill to spend like he did in free agency. I thought he could get deals that would look good in 2023-24 and the cap those years. But my issue is there are glaring holes next year in the secondary, offensive-line, at ILB, and a few other roles and Bill has not much money and will need a handful of starters. That concerns me. Then when they didn’t draft guys at OT, CB, S high in the draft they exacerbated the situation going into 2022-2023. Now he might find solutions but it’s going to be a tight rope to walk.
And as much as I loved Cam McGrone’s fit here he is raw in anything but stopping the run. He has the traits to be a true steal but he has to develop. That’s never a given.

The Pats have invested in some of those areas. For example, they drafted a safety high in the 2020 draft, as well as 2 LB's. McGrone was drafted where development players were drafted. They also drafted Barmore and Jones in the first 2 rounds, two other areas of need.

I do agree that signing 2 tight ends and 2 JAG WR's was a mistake; they probably could have spread the wealth a bit and filled some other positions. But a lot of prognosticators had the OL as one of the team's strengths going into this season, so it wasn't just Bill & Co that mis-evaluated the talent level there.

I think the reality is that this is a multi-year rebuilding project. They also need some of their draftees to become Pro-Bowl level players, but that is likely to take a couple of more years for anyone in this year's draft class and next (maybe Dugger or Uche from the 2020 class to get there, but it's getting late early for them). The last Pro Bowl player drafted by the Pats is Jamie Collins, and Chandler Jones is the last All-Pro (although James White or Joe Thuney probably could have been considered for the Pro Bowl; of course, one is injured and the other isn't on the team anymore).

 

[Eddie Jurak]

But a lot of prognosticators had the OL as one of the team's strengths going into this season, so it wasn't just Bill & Co that mis-evaluated the talent level there.

I'm still hoping we get the OL sorted out. Onwenu at RT might be better than Onwenu at LG. Karras has been good since he got into the lineup. If we can get Ferentz out of the lineup, Mason back into it, and Wynn or Brown solidify LT, then that would be a step up.

 

[Jimbodandy]

Is there a rookie QB that people are thinking of when they talk about 9 wins in their first season? When you start a rookie, you lose.

I can provide a list of 1st rounders back to 2011:
.500 or Losing record in their first year: (20)

Trubisky, Darnold, Watson (3-3), Burrow, Mayfield, Kyler, Herbert, Jones, Goff, Wentz, Winston, Mariota, Manziel, Bortles, Tannehill, Allen, Bridgewater (6-6), Newton, Locker, Ponder and all of 2013’s class

Winning Record in their first year: (3)
Lamar, Luck, RG3

I didn’t count Mahomes because it was only 1 game.

This is why starting rookie QBs is a bad idea. A year of film, pro strength and mechanics programs and diet programs does wonders.

 

[Red Averages]

This is why starting rookie QBs is a bad idea. A year of film, pro strength and mechanics programs and diet programs does wonders.

Where would this team be with a non-Mac Jones QB this year?

How much better/worse would they be in year 2 if Mac had a full year of experience vs a full year of “film, pro strength and mechanics program and diet programs”?

 

[Cellar-Door]

Where would this team be with a non-Mac Jones QB this year?

How much better/worse would they be in year 2 if Mac had a full year of experience vs a full year of “film, pro strength and mechanics program and diet programs”?

Depends who the non-Mac QB is, Cam Newton? Probably not much if any.
and impossible to tell on the second... some guys make a big leap in their second year some don't, some ever regress, and obviously there is no real way to tell if sitting a year vs. playing makes a difference since you obviously can't have a player do both.

 

[Jimbodandy]

Depends who the non-Mac QB is, Cam Newton? Probably not much if any.
and impossible to tell on the second... some guys make a big leap in their second year some don't, some ever regress, and obviously there is no real way to tell if sitting a year vs. playing makes a difference since you obviously can't have a player do both.

Yeah I don't think that we have much of an idea whether Mac redshirting or being baptized by fire would set him up better for next year. We got a pretty good idea what it means for this year though. Brady, Brees, Mahomes, Rodgers all redshirted and turned out ok. Peyton didn't and absolutely sucked in year 1. Guy is in the conversation for best ever and stepped on his dick for 16 games.

We shouldn't be surprised that this team isn't going anywhere. Mac is the best of the rookie QBs. They all suck. He just sucks less.

 

[rodderick]

Yeah I don't think that we have much of an idea whether Mac redshirting or being baptized by fire would set him up better for next year. We got a pretty good idea what it means for this year though. Brady, Brees, Mahomes, Rodgers all redshirted and turned out ok. Peyton didn't and absolutely sucked in year 1. Guy is in the conversation for best ever and stepped on his dick for 16 games.

We shouldn't be surprised that this team isn't going anywhere. Mac is the best of the rookie QBs. They all suck. He just sucks less.

Peyton didn't absolutely suck in year one. He led the league in attempts as a rookie for a bad team and still had close to league average rate stats (higher ANY/A+ than Mac has had so far, for instance). He was 12th in DYAR and 14th in DVOA. They put a whole lot on his plate and he handled it fine.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Peyton didn't absolutely suck in year one. He led the league in attempts as a rookie for a bad team and still had close to league average rate stats (higher ANY/A+ than Mac has had so far, for instance). He was 12th in DYAR and 14th in DVOA. They put a whole lot on his plate and he handled it fine.

He didn't absolutely suck, but his first year and last year stand out as being markedly worse than anything else he did in the NFL.

 

[tims4wins]

The question isn’t whether starting Mac this year leads to a better record in 2021, it’s whether or not it sets him up for future success. I feel that the surrounding pieces are good enough that this season will not wreck Mac either physically or mentally. Hopefully the O line play continues to improve because the Pats have made their bed at this point. So many rookie QBs get ruined because the team sucks, especially the O line, and they get battered physically and mentally.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Are teams with rookie QB’s bad because they start rookie QB’s or is it that teams that start rookie QB’s tend to be bad teams to begin with?

The rookie QB’s that are most likely to start are those drafted highest in the draft, when the worst teams are picking, obviously.

I feel like I’m hearing that the Pats shouldn’t expect to be good because they are starting a rookie QB but also that Mac has been fine, which seems somewhat contradictory.

 

[tims4wins]

Are teams with rookie QB’s bad because they start rookie QB’s or is it that teams that start rookie QB’s tend to be bad teams to begin with?

The rookie QB’s that are most likely to start are those drafted highest in the draft, when the worst teams are picking, obviously.

I feel like I’m hearing that the Pats shouldn’t expect to be good because they are starting a rookie QB but also that Mac has been fine, which seems somewhat contradictory.

It’s much more the latter than the former. So I understand that it’s a little hypocritical of anyone to say Mac is playing decent but they still stink because they’re not a good team.

I think the reality is that Mac is playing pretty well for a rookie but that is still a bottom 10 QB, and the surrounding team isn’t quite as good as we thought. Then you throw in a little bad luck, turnovers at the wrong time, bad situational football or whatever you want to call it and it leads to 2-4. If they were at 3-3 having banked just one more of those wins we’d be feeling more optimistic, I think. But they’ve shot themselves in the foot too many times so here we are.

 

[lexrageorge]

Are teams with rookie QB’s bad because they start rookie QB’s or is it that teams that start rookie QB’s tend to be bad teams to begin with?

The rookie QB’s that are most likely to start are those drafted highest in the draft, when the worst teams are picking, obviously.

I feel like I’m hearing that the Pats shouldn’t expect to be good because they are starting a rookie QB but also that Mac has been fine, which seems somewhat contradictory.

It sounds contradictory at first. But the reality is that a large percentage of QB's perform well below league average in their rookie year, assuming they play. For a rookie QB, Mac is probably in the upper half historically. And he shows some good characteristics in his play that indicate future success. Of course, such success is not guaranteed.

Regarding the quality of the team, there is not a single player on the offensive side of the ball that give defensive coordinators anything to worry about.

 

[axx]

Gonna go out on a limb and say McDaniels is gone after this season.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Yeah l guess rookie QB’s rarely start and those that do tend to profile quite a bit differently than Jones, so we are in strange territory here. With a QB on his rookie deal, I’d feel about the future if the Pats hadn’t spent so much money this off-season on a lot of pieces, especially offensively, that don’t seem like great fits. But, it’s only six games and they’ve largely been competitive, so if the results start changing a bit, we’ll all feel better about the present and future.

 

[mauf]

Are teams with rookie QB’s bad because they start rookie QB’s or is it that teams that start rookie QB’s tend to be bad teams to begin with?

The rookie QB’s that are most likely to start are those drafted highest in the draft, when the worst teams are picking, obviously.

I feel like I’m hearing that the Pats shouldn’t expect to be good because they are starting a rookie QB but also that Mac has been fine, which seems somewhat contradictory.

Justin Herbert was roughly average last season, using metrics like yards per attempt. I think you have to go back to Russell Wilson to find another rookie QB who was average or better. There are, however, a lot of QBs who are above average in year 2. The difference is stark enough that general team improvement from year 1 to year 2 can’t be the key driver, and I’ve never heard anyone who was involved with the game suggest that was the case.

Mac has been better than the other rookie QBs who have gotten significant time this season, and I think he’d be the 2nd or 3rd QB taken in a redraft (behind Lawrence and maybe Lance), but in terms of current performance, Mac is still below average. It was not reasonable to expect otherwise.

A lot of smart people, here and elsewhere, apparently thought this year’s Pats would be a playoff team with below-average QB play. I never saw it.

 

[lexrageorge]

Justin Herbert was roughly average last season, using metrics like yards per attempt. I think you have to go back to Russell Wilson to find another rookie QB who was average or better. There are, however, a lot of QBs who are above average in year 2. The difference is stark enough that general team improvement from year 1 to year 2 can’t be the key driver, and I’ve never heard anyone who was involved with the game suggest that was the case.

Mac has been better than the other rookie QBs who have gotten significant time this season, and I think he’d be the 2nd or 3rd QB taken in a redraft (behind Lawrence and maybe Lance), but in terms of current performance, Mac is still below average. It was not reasonable to expect otherwise.

A lot of smart people, here and elsewhere, apparently thought this year’s Pats would be a playoff team with below-average QB play. I never saw it.

And Russell Wilson is one of the rare examples of a rookie QB playing for a not so terrible team. The 2011 Seahawks team finished at 7-9, but were in playoff contention until they dropped the final 2 games. Wilson joined a team that already had Marshawn Lynch, Doug Baldwin, Kam Chancellor, and Richard Sherman, among others.

Another factor to consider is experience. Wilson was also 24 and had thrown nearly 1500 passes in his college career. By comparison, Mac Jones is a year younger entering the league and had thrown all of 556 passes in NCAA. As another comparison, Mac Jones threw 800 fewer passes in college than Patrick Mahomes, the classic example of a QB that spent his rookie year as an understudy. But I feel these examples reinforce the point that the ceiling for Mac Jones this season was slightly below average performance. He hasn't achieved that level either, but he hasn't had much help, and I'm not at all buying the narrative that the quality of the OL play so far being league average.

 

[mauf]

Yeah l guess rookie QB’s rarely start and those that do tend to profile quite a bit differently than Jones, so we are in strange territory here. With a QB on his rookie deal, I’d feel about the future if the Pats hadn’t spent so much money this off-season on a lot of pieces, especially offensively, that don’t seem like great fits. But, it’s only six games and they’ve largely been competitive, so if the results start changing a bit, we’ll all feel better about the present and future.

The bolded is my concern in a nutshell.

The 2021 Pats weren’t going to be a playoff team absent a Cam Newton renaissance. I think we all agree that Cam was cooked, and BB was right to pull the plug when he did. So I’m not concerned that the free-agent spending spree didn’t immediately translate to wins.

Looking toward 2022, however, I see a team with a lot of holes and only $27M in projected cap space, Other than KVN, the obvious guys you could cut to open up more space are guys you want to keep around if they’re healthy (e.g., Shaq Mason, Jon Jones). Agholor is slated to earn $15M in 2022 and would cost $10M in dead money if he’s cut, so that’s one guy in particular I’m hoping can contribute.

Here’s the source I used for salary/cap info:

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/new-england-patriots/

 

[jsinger121]

The Agholor contract is so hideously bad that I still can’t believe they gave it to him. His contract should have been one that could have been cut easily in year 2 or not signed at all.

 

[OurF'ingCity]

Gonna go out on a limb and say McDaniels is gone after this season.

They need to completely reevaluate the coordinator situation on both sides of the ball. I’m actually somewhat less bothered by Josh - yeah his playcalling seems inconsistent and I think his weaknesses are more exposed when he doesn’t have a QB like Brady who more or less has the ability to call his own plays, but he’s still solid at least.

The defensive situation seems like more of a clear shitshow - a lot of that is talent-related obviously but there have also been many times that the defense just seemed confused or out of position. This off-season BB really needs to ask himself honestly if Steve is the right long-term option at co-defensive coordinator. To my eyes, they could really use a fresh set of ideas from the outside on the defensive side of things.

 

[johnmd20]

Justin Herbert was roughly average last season, using metrics like yards per attempt. I think you have to go back to Russell Wilson to find another rookie QB who was average or better. There are, however, a lot of QBs who are above average in year 2. The difference is stark enough that general team improvement from year 1 to year 2 can’t be the key driver, and I’ve never heard anyone who was involved with the game suggest that was the case.

Mac has been better than the other rookie QBs who have gotten significant time this season, and I think he’d be the 2nd or 3rd QB taken in a redraft (behind Lawrence and maybe Lance), but in terms of current performance, Mac is still below average. It was not reasonable to expect otherwise.

A lot of smart people, here and elsewhere, apparently thought this year’s Pats would be a playoff team with below-average QB play. I never saw it.

Herbert was also 12th in rating and 6th in total yards last year. He also quietly had 5 rushing TDs last year.

He wasn't "average" last year as a QB, he was decidedly above average but clearly not in the top 8. For a rookie, he was phenomenal. He was better than a number of QBs who have been playing for a while.

Mac Jones is currently 20th in yards, 20th in rating, and 22nd in yards per attempt. Now that looks like a more average QB performance to me, you are correct.

 

[BaseballJones]

If Mac Jones finishes in the middle of the pack among NFL QBs this year in terms of performance (by various metrics), that's an enormously successful season. It's incredibly hard for rookies to do that.

 

[SMU_Sox]

If Mac Jones finishes in the middle of the pack among NFL QBs this year in terms of performance (by various metrics), that's an enormously successful season. It's incredibly hard for rookies to do that.

Agreed. I can’t find it or remember who wrote it but the average rookie QB the last decade has had somewhere between the 23rd and 27th ranked ANY/A. I put the bar at 20th for having a good year. You can also look at NY/A - 20th there is a success.

The Athletic pod were discussing Mac the other day. He’s playing the best right now of the rookies but what’s his ceiling - what things can he improve upon and what does peak Mac look like? Chad Pennington. You can win a super bowl with Chad Pennington. He might not ever be a top 5 guy but he can be a top half of the league guy and that means something. Mentally he has some room to go, sure, but he understands coverages and knows what the right read is. He’s not a guy who will create a lot out of structure. He and Burrow will always have issues with stuff outside the numbers especially if you’re talking about 20+ yard out routes. He has great accuracy but the arm strength is sorely lacking. I can see this board in a couple years saying “If they rush 3 and drop 8 and flood the middle of the field Mac can’t beat them on the outside.” But aside from that one schematic limitation and lack of high end physical traits he should be able to run this offense well and be a competent starter. Mac isn’t going to be a bust - he can hang in the NFL and he will probably be a mid tier starter by end of this year or next year. That’s incredibly valuable on a rookie contract. I can’t say that about any of the other rookie QBs minus I am starting to see that for Lawrence.

Quick edit: I also think measuring which rookie is playing the best right now is… not really worth as much effort. It’s really about who will be the best in year 2-3. Yes having a good year 1 is a part of that but for some guys like Wilson, Fields, and Lance - we all knew going in that their first year would be rough and they might benefit a lot from not having to start right away.

Philosophically Bill is a do your job guy. He wants to win in structure. He wants a baker not a chef. Mac Jones is the embodiment of those principles. I don’t think he lost his fastball with the Mac pick (not sure if anyone argued that or not but if they did I would be on the disagreement side).

 

[Jimbodandy]

He didn't absolutely suck, but his first year and last year stand out as being markedly worse than anything else he did in the NFL.

Yeah when you're one of the best ever and led the league in INTs and threw more INTs than TDs and went 3-13 and it's not 1960, then you had a bad fucking year.

Peyton's rookie year was an homage to his fraud father. Similar performance. And as you note, an extreme outlier. Only his corpse year at the end was worse.

 

[RedOctober3829]

If Mac can get in the weight room this offseason and get in the lab with his mechanics coach I think he can improve his outside the numbers throws.

 

[SMU_Sox]

I agree @RedOctober3829 but I don’t think he will ever be able to level up that arm strength to say 2007 Brady. I think it will jump next year though. Mac seems like such a perfectionist I can’t imagine him not trying to emulate the same study and work habits that Brady had. Not because he wants to be Brady or he is copying Brady but because that’s what all the hyper competitive guys of that ilk do. And when that growth happens coupled with his mental growth that’s a potential top 12 kind of starter. Of course the downside is he peaks mentally and doesn’t grow enough physically and is just a mid tier guy with those limitations. We don’t like to talk about the downside but it’s real too. I just think he will be so motivated and hard working he will be able to achieve those gains.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Remember that double post concept vs the Jets we discussed here? You can see Mac’s timing and anticipation for deep throws improved a ton vs the Cowboys. He didn’t hesitate. That’s real results in 3 games. 3 games! Bravo, Mac.

edit: 4 games but the point remains. Yikes, better Khan academy myself and level up those counting skills.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I agree @RedOctober3829 but I don’t think he will ever be able to level up that arm strength to say 2007 Brady. I think it will jump next year though. Mac seems like such a perfectionist I can’t imagine him not trying to emulate the same study and work habits that Brady had. Not because he wants to be Brady or he is copying Brady but because that’s what all the hyper competitive guys of that ilk do. And when that growth happens coupled with his mental growth that’s a potential top 12 kind of starter. Of course the downside is he peaks mentally and doesn’t grow enough physically and is just a mid tier guy with those limitations. We don’t like to talk about the downside but it’s real too. I just think he will be so motivated and hard working he will be able to achieve those gains.

I don't think he has to have '07 Brady arm strength. He just has to put enough zip on those throws outside the numbers that they won't be floating up there like a lot of them are this year.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

I agree that Mac’s value on a rookie contract is very useful- but it really all comes down to how the Patriots use the rest of the payroll, the money saved from not having to pay a QB big money and I think that’s where the concern lies. The Pats biggest cap hits this year are Hightower (12.4), McCourty (11.1), Mason (9.5), Jones (7.4), Agholor (6.9), and Henry (6.8) which is depressing and hardly the type of talent needed to surround an OK QB with and win.

 

[BaseballJones]

Henry has been good. 22 receptions, 78.% catch rate, 241 yds, 11.0 y/c, 3 td. He's on pace for 62 receptions, 683 yds, 9 td.

Nothing wrong with that from your TE, especially with a rookie throwing to you and a bad offensive line trying to protect him.

In other words, not to take away from your larger point, but I wouldn't include Henry in the list of "depressing" contracts.

 

[johnmd20]

Henry has been good. 22 receptions, 78.% catch rate, 241 yds, 11.0 y/c, 3 td. He's on pace for 62 receptions, 683 yds, 9 td.

Nothing wrong with that from your TE, especially with a rookie throwing to you and a bad offensive line trying to protect him.

In other words, not to take away from your larger point, but I wouldn't include Henry in the list of "depressing" contracts.

Seriously. Agahlor has less catches, less yards, and less TDs. He's the disaster of the signings.

 

[rodderick]

Agholor is giving you something pretty close to his career numbers. His per 16 numbers are 50 catches for 625 yards and 5 TDs. Right now he's on a 16 game pace for 45 catches for 597 yards and 3 TDs. The mistake was paying for 2020 Agholor when he had 71 games of the 2021 version under his belt.

 

[SMU_Sox]

@Petagine in a Bottle something I’ve thought about is most championships teams have multiple guys on offense or defense who are top 5 players at their position. On offense I don’t think they have any. Maybe Mason is a top 5 RG. But that’s it. On defense Judon is a top 5 3-4 edge. So 1-2 guys. That’s not great for top end talent. I think for the early 2000’s teams they had 3 on defense: Law, Seymour, and Harrison.

Quick edit: I am working on a post that looks at pass catchers on AFC and NFC championship game teams vs what the Pats have. Not pretty so far.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Look forward to reading that! But yeah, for a long long time the Pats seemed to have a bunch of underpaid stars, and a very solid middle class of complimentary players that “did their job”. Now they seem to have no stars and are paying the middle class as if they were stars. They used to have a deep roster with so many players outperforming their contracts and now it’s really hard to find many at all.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

@Petagine in a Bottle something I’ve thought about is most championships teams have multiple guys on offense or defense who are top 5 players at their position. On offense I don’t think they have any. Maybe Mason is a top 5 RG. But that’s it. On defense Judon is a top 5 3-4 edge. So 1-2 guys. That’s not great for top end talent. I think for the early 2000’s teams they had 3 on defense: Law, Seymour, and Harrison.

Quick edit: I am working on a post that looks at pass catchers on AFC and NFC championship game teams vs what the Pats have. Not pretty so far.

Would you not put Jackson up there? Andrews? I can't come up with anyone else, which still proves your point.

 

[jsinger121]

Would you not put Jackson up there? Andrews? I can't come up with anyone else, which still proves your point.

Jackson isn’t even a number 1 corner. I’m not sure Andrews is a top 5 center either.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Would you not put Jackson up there? Andrews? I can't come up with anyone else, which still proves your point.

As a CB1 he is not a top 5 guy. He would have qualified as a top 5 CB2 though. Andrews is not a top 5 center. He is somewhere in the back half of the top 10 and/or top 15.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

The Patriots have a point differential of -2, yet are 2-4, which suggests they are better than their record, at least by a win. A .500 team.

They have played 4 close games and are 1-3.

Their defense has give up a lot of yards, but not really a lot of points - they are about 10th in the league in points allowed per game, and 2 of their TDs allowed were scored against the offense.

Their turnover differential is -3. That is part of how they have lost close games. They were +4 in their easy win, -3 in their uncompetitive loss. In their 4 close games they were -1 (loss), -2 (loss), -1 (win), even (loss).

Special teams (outside of FG kicking) have also not been an asset for the Pats, as they have had a couple of punts blocked.

They have been exceptionally conservative in offensive play-calling, and perhaps defensive as well.

What to make of all of this?

One possibility is that the Pats are a .500 team and have mostly played like one, but the breaks haven't gone their way, or that poor day of game coaching has let them down.

Another possibility is that the Pats are a pretty bad team, in particular because they lack playmakers, and for that reason the coaching staff has adopted a "let their air out of the ball" (figuratively of course) strategy to try to stay competitive, which has led to some narrow losses that could easily have been bigger ones. What looks like ppor day of game coahcing is really just the coaching staff executing the best strategy they can.

I don't know. Miami should have been a win but for the Harris fumble, which leaves them right where their point differential says they should be, .500..

 

[Eddie Jurak]

@Petagine in a Bottle something I’ve thought about is most championships teams have multiple guys on offense or defense who are top 5 players at their position. On offense I don’t think they have any. Maybe Mason is a top 5 RG. But that’s it. On defense Judon is a top 5 3-4 edge. So 1-2 guys. That’s not great for top end talent. I think for the early 2000’s teams they had 3 on defense: Law, Seymour, and Harrison.

Quick edit: I am working on a post that looks at pass catchers on AFC and NFC championship game teams vs what the Pats have. Not pretty so far.

Who do the Pats have that might emerge as top 5 as the season goes on? Offensively, maybe Onwenu if he is just more suited to tackle than guard? Maybe Harris if he can hold the football? No one else looks to have that potential. Defensively, is Barmore the closest? Not sure who else I would even suggest.

 

[tims4wins]

The Patriots have a point differential of -2, yet are 2-4, which suggests they are better than their record, at least by a win. A .500 team.

They have played 4 close games and are 1-3.

Their defense has give up a lot of yards, but not really a lot of points - they are about 10th in the league in points allowed per game, and 2 of their TDs allowed were scored against the offense.

Their turnover differential is -3. That is part of how they have lost close games. They were +4 in their easy win, -3 in their uncompetitive loss. In their 4 close games they were -1 (loss), -2 (loss), -1 (win), even (loss).

Special teams (outside of FG kicking) have also not been an asset for the Pats, as they have had a couple of punts blocked.

They have been exceptionally conservative in offensive play-calling, and perhaps defensive as well.

What to make of all of this?

One possibility is that the Pats are a .500 team and have mostly played like one, but the breaks haven't gone their way, or that poor day of game coaching has let them down.

Another possibility is that the Pats are a pretty bad team, in particular because they lack playmakers, and for that reason the coaching staff has adopted a "let their air out of the ball" (figuratively of course) strategy to try to stay competitive, which has led to some narrow losses that could easily have been bigger ones. What looks like ppor day of game coahcing is really just the coaching staff executing the best strategy they can.

I don't know. Miami should have been a win but for the Harris fumble, which leaves them right where their point differential says they should be, .500..

This is well put. I doubt we get any answers today (unless they lose, yikes), but I think we’ll know by Thanksgiving.

 

[Silverdude2167]

The Patriots have a point differential of -2, yet are 2-4, which suggests they are better than their record, at least by a win. A .500 team.

They have played 4 close games and are 1-3.

Their defense has give up a lot of yards, but not really a lot of points - they are about 10th in the league in points allowed per game, and 2 of their TDs allowed were scored against the offense.

Their turnover differential is -3. That is part of how they have lost close games. They were +4 in their easy win, -3 in their uncompetitive loss. In their 4 close games they were -1 (loss), -2 (loss), -1 (win), even (loss).

Special teams (outside of FG kicking) have also not been an asset for the Pats, as they have had a couple of punts blocked.

They have been exceptionally conservative in offensive play-calling, and perhaps defensive as well.

What to make of all of this?

One possibility is that the Pats are a .500 team and have mostly played like one, but the breaks haven't gone their way, or that poor day of game coaching has let them down.

Another possibility is that the Pats are a pretty bad team, in particular because they lack playmakers, and for that reason the coaching staff has adopted a "let their air out of the ball" (figuratively of course) strategy to try to stay competitive, which has led to some narrow losses that could easily have been bigger ones. What looks like ppor day of game coahcing is really just the coaching staff executing the best strategy they can.

I don't know. Miami should have been a win but for the Harris fumble, which leaves them right where their point differential says they should be, .500..

I get why no one wants to talk about the third possiblity, but they also could be an above average team that has been figuring things out.
Other than Miami, two of there losses are to top teams and one, to a jekyll and hyde that seems above average.

I don't know what to make of them yet, but in 6 weeks I would not be shocked if they were 8-4 or well 4-8.
Now just don't lose to the Jets...

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I get why no one wants to talk about the third possiblity, but they also could be an above average team that has been figuring things out.

I would state that differently. Let's say that they "figure things out" and go 8-3 over their final 11 (which I don't expect, FWIW). Then I would call them an above average team overall, but not specifically over their first 6 games.

 

[rodderick]

Their two wins came against arguably the two worst teams in football and had they beaten the Dolphins they'd be 3-3 with wins over the three worst teams in football. I think the Bucs and Cowboys games were fortunate to be that close (less so the Bucs, to be fair). They've looked like a 2-4 team to my eyes. Could be a lot worse if they didn't have 5 home games and 4 games against the Jets, Dolphins and Texans in their first 7. The start of this season couldn't have been more favorable in terms of scheduling and yet here we are.