Pats Draft Rd.1/15: QB Michael McCorkle "Mac" Jones

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
11,979
Haha, I misread his post and thought it said that the knocks on Rodgers were the same as on Jones, then after I posted I realized he said they are NOT the same, so my post was useless
I'm just joking with you -- couldn't resist the urge to comment on your "point".
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,374
Mansfield MA
Jim Nagy (Senior Bowl director, ex NE/NFL scout) was on Phil Perry's podcast after the Senior Bowl, and he gave some great insight into Mac. Perry asked him about Mac's athletic limitations and the other QBs having higher ceilings because of it. Nagy gave a fascinating answer which sort of stopped me in my tracks and made me reevaluate some of my preconceived opinions. Paraphrasing, Nagy mentioned media/fans/Draft Twitter correlate upside and ceiling to their physical ability but the NFL doesn't. think that way. He said Mac is relatively inexperienced, with 17 starts. He's already this good and the game is already pretty slow for him; how good is he going to be with more experience the way he studies and learns? He pointed out how Mac just kept getting exponentially better the more he played, capped off with a great CFB playoff run; why just assume he's leveled out? There's a ceiling and upside component to the mental part of the game as well. Just like every player has different physical ability, every player also has different processing abilities. (He also mentioned Mac is definitely a better athlete with a better arm than a lot of people give him credit for).
I agree with Nagy here. We're used to thinking of physical talent as defining the ceiling at most positions but a) that's probably overblown generally and b) it's definitely overblown at QB. Did Jay Cutler have a higher ceiling than Tom Brady? Guys like Brady, Manning, Brees, Montana are some of the best ever, each with physical talent that would be considered marginal in some area. It does not look to me like the best players are the ones with the biggest arms or the most athleticism.

Some smart people have argued that it's easier for a young QB with athleticism to survive while he learns the mental side of the NFL game, giving him more of a floor in his early years and letting him develop what he needs to and become more of a pocket guy. My galaxy brain counter is: what if Brady (and others like him), knowing he's never going to have physical ability to fall back on, is forced to hone the subtle skills of quarterbacking to a razor sharp point: his presnap reads, diagnosing shifts post-snap, his drop footwork, his pocket movement, consistent throwing mechanics over and over, timing and anticipation throws, etc., in a way that he might not have if he'd just been able to scramble out of danger for 10 yards when shit hits the fan?
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
12,542
Brady might be the greatest athlete ever in terms of mastering all the mental aspects of his sport. Russell? I don’t know who else is on this list but it’s a short list.
 

SteveF

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
267
I agree with Nagy here.
I agree with this, and would suggest a further, subtler point.

Foot speed/running/arm strength are easily seen and measured. At least as a relative matter, we can't as reliably/easily measure a quarterback's processing speed. When you draft, maybe you do and should select a player based on easily measured factors because you can't reliably know whether the lesser athlete really has the superior processing skill given how hard that is to measure.

What I wonder is whether we overestimate the importance of things we CAN see/measure relative to those we cannot with regard to NFL quarterbacking success. Is there a cognitive bias in overestimating the importance of measurables relative to the unmeasurables? There certainly is such a bias in other fields of research. I cannot imagine QB scouting is any different.
 
Last edited:

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
17,169
Unreal America
Brady might be the greatest athlete ever in terms of mastering all the mental aspects of his sport. Russell? I don’t know who else is on this list but it’s a short list.
Larry Bird. Prior to Brady, he was the poster child for a guy with OK athletic ability, who then hones both his physical and mental abilities to a HOF level.
 
Sep 1, 2019
160
Jordan as well

Is there a cognitive bias in overestimating the importance of measurables relative to the unmeasurables?
I think that is inevitable--physical traits can be directly assessed, while abilities such as timely decision-making and in-time adjustments in the context of the NFL game cannot. You rely on what you can gauge and take your best guess at the rest.
 

Import78

Member
SoSH Member
May 29, 2007
1,709
West Lebanon, NH
I agree with this, and would suggest a further, subtler point.

Foot speed/running/arm strength are easily seen and measured. At least a relative matter, we can't as reliably/easily measure a quarterback's processing speed. When you draft, maybe you do and should select a player based on easily measured factors because you can't reliably know whether the lesser athlete really has the superior processing skill given how hard that is to measure.

What I wonder is whether we overestimate the importance of things we CAN see/measure relative to those we cannot with regard to NFL quarterbacking success. Is there a cognitive bias in overestimating the importance of measurables relative to the unmeasurables? There certainly is such a bias in other fields of research. I cannot imagine QB scouting is any different.
There are some things that athletes have to be able to do. Even at my highest level (decent club teams with regional, not national aspirations) there were guys who could athletically get away from me, knowing what they were going to do and being right only helps so much. There is some value in measuring those things because they are a piece of the puzzle. They may well be overrated because they are so easy to compare and quantify relative to the unmeasurables.

I recall an older video about the Pats and how they tried to quantify things that were intangible or immeasurable like leadership, mental toughness etc and trying to measure those as part of player evaluation. Those things are obviously harder to quantify, but at least they weren't saying "this guys has great intangibles", it was more "this guy is a good leader and mentally tough". Is the obsession with the wonderlic still a thing? That's another test that is easy to compare between players, but I don't think it necessarily tells you what you want to know. Still, it's got a number attached to it and so it gets used.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,861
Maine
I think another counter argument to the "Athletic QBs survive and thus eventually thrive better then non Athletic Qbs...." argument
Is "In most cases."

In most cases the Athletic high Tools QB is going to a team thats weak. Maybe weak OL, Maybe weak WRs, Maybe Weak RBs, Maybe Weak TEs. That weakness forces them to rely on the "Tuck and Run concept" if that first read isnt there. Then of course a 4.4 40 helps immensely.
This gives not only the QB to develop touch and accuracy that they might not have coming out but also allows the team to also improve around them.
The downside is they might not "survive" the learning curve time (Teddy Bridgwater comes to mind).

It Macs case he is going to as good a spot as a "non Athletic QB" (I think Lesser athletic QB is more fair but whatever ...) can go.

He has a strong Line. He has strong Backs. He has 2 of top 10 TEs in the league (bottom half maybe). His WRs need some work but are workable. He also has a GOAT Coach and a HOF OC.
Most of us I am sure feel The pats will run alot, Screen alot and have quick passes to the TE. Some Play action built in (which not only helps Mac but helps the WRs we do have). Mac will have much less need to "tuck and run" and thus doesnt need to be as good at it (Athletically). He will need to be accurate (check) have good timing (check) and be able to hit his WR in stride on the Play action (check).
If he can survive on that formula for 3 years (with some success) the game slows down, and MAYBE he rebuilds his body like Brady did.
At that point he has 4 years or experience, Tools that allow pocket success and a bit stronger arm.
The Downside is he might not survive the hits he takes in the pocket during that learning curve time (David Carr or basically any Browns QB comes to mind)

I also think the "Let him sit behind the Vet" fits this theory. The Vet takes (some of) the lumps while you improve the Line, Backs, WRs and TEs. Allowing you to Put your Young QB into the Best possible learning curve ( a similar situation as the Pats this year).
It would be interesting to see if its a chicken or Egg thing where "If you can last 4 years as a starting QB in the NFL you have a pretty good career."
 

SteveF

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
267
I do wonder if there is a way to build some program/game on a VR headset that would, as an example, flash for 1 second an image of a pre-snap defense and then maybe you ask the quarterback to make as many assessments of that defensive scheme as was possible, perhaps asking him about the likely read progressions, what kinds of defenses it likely wouldn't be, and so forth.

There has to be a way to at least make some attempt at measuring the visual processing of information.
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
1,021
Translating QB IQ from college to NFL can pose problems. I'll use the analogy that there are players in the minors that can destroy lower minor league pitching and then be helpless in the MLB. That extra millisecond of pitch recognition is enough of a difference. So, he should be fine against the Jets at any rate
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
13,736
Richmond, VA
I agree with Nagy here. We're used to thinking of physical talent as defining the ceiling at most positions but a) that's probably overblown generally and b) it's definitely overblown at QB. Did Jay Cutler have a higher ceiling than Tom Brady? Guys like Brady, Manning, Brees, Montana are some of the best ever, each with physical talent that would be considered marginal in some area. It does not look to me like the best players are the ones with the biggest arms or the most athleticism.

Some smart people have argued that it's easier for a young QB with athleticism to survive while he learns the mental side of the NFL game, giving him more of a floor in his early years and letting him develop what he needs to and become more of a pocket guy. My galaxy brain counter is: what if Brady (and others like him), knowing he's never going to have physical ability to fall back on, is forced to hone the subtle skills of quarterbacking to a razor sharp point: his presnap reads, diagnosing shifts post-snap, his drop footwork, his pocket movement, consistent throwing mechanics over and over, timing and anticipation throws, etc., in a way that he might not have if he'd just been able to scramble out of danger for 10 yards when shit hits the fan?
im going to extend this even further out, in a way that might (?) also explain what @BusRaker noted about the ‘quadruple A’ player.
An athlete in college, or the minor leagues, can be on a whole spectrum of athleticism and game IQ (leaving other variables out of it for now).
There are some athletes who are + in both athleticism and game IQ.
There are some athletes that are pure athleticism, or at least dominantly athletic. Their long-term success as a pro depends on their ability to have that physical edge, and sometimes they can get smarter as they go, but they’ve come up through the ranks basically on the physical side of things.
There are those who are a blend of ‘pretty athletic and pretty smart’. In college (or minors) they are as good or better athletes than their peers. They’ve grown up thinking of themselves as physically elite, but their success in The League depends on how much smarter they can get, because coming out of college/minors they won’t be physically elite anymore.

Then there are those who grew up being smart about the game. At all levels, even before higschool, they’ve been smart about their game. They’re comparative athleticism varies as they get older, fill in their frames, compete at higher and higher levels, etc. but learning and game IQ and understanding/seeing the game better has always been their calling card. This is someone like Brady, maybe. He was never out-athleticizing his opponents. I’d be curious even in high school if he was ever considered ‘really athletic’.
McCorkle sounds like that kind of guy. It doesn’t look like he has ever really relied on being ‘An Athlete’ in the traditional, physical sense. He’s succeeded, and will continue to succeed (or not) on his ability to be smart about the game. (And yeah, conditioning and particularly core strength will be critical...can we get him working out with TB12?)

TL/DNR:
Elite athlete, smarts not as critical.
Always athletic, trying to get smarter in order to break through.
Always had to be an elite thinker, athleticism secondary (but can still grow into that)

Larry Bird. Prior to Brady, he was the poster child for a guy with OK athletic ability, who then hones both his physical and mental abilities to a HOF level.
Yeah Bird immediately came to mind too.

I'd put Tiger Woods on that list too.
Jordan as well
Both Jordan and Tiger were physically quite gifted. Jordan was doing those crazy athletic dunks amd moves, and Tiger came into the scene with dramatic long drives. Not saying they weren’t smart...they’re the + players on both axes. But Bird really seemed like ++ on game IQ and ? physically. He had a quickness and a maneuverability that was special, but his vision is what made him one of the GOATS, I think.
 
Last edited:

djbayko

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
16,158
Los Angeles, CA
So who starts Week 1? Can Mac win the starting job in training camp? Or does Cam have to lose it somehow? I know Bill will play whoever he thinks gives the team the best chance to win. But I can definitely see him thinking that's Cam to start the season, especially given that he knows the system already.
 
Last edited:

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
1,065
I think there's more than just football IQ in the QB ceiling conversation; the way they're wired is also such a large component of it all. Are they wired to put in the work, study film, lead, compete and grind? Are they wired to handle adversity? Are they wired for mental toughness? There's been no shortage of guys who've had the physical ability to be NFL QBs, who could learn a playbook and read a coverage, but it was that other stuff that they just weren't ever going to embrace. I don't think there's any way to decouple a player's wiring from their ceiling. Like, how could you project Haskin's ceiling without taking into account how he's wired? Or Manziel? Jamarcus Russell? Josh Rosen? Like, Josh Rosen is a really smart dude with physical ability. But he just doesn't seem wired to be an NFL QB (and that's okay, too).

In that Nagy podcast I mentioned, as an aside, he relayed a pretty cool Mac anecdote from the Senior Bowl. They'd run player/team interviews until about 11:30pm, and then shut the facility down at midnight. On the nights Mac didn't have interviews, the Senior Bowl staff found him in the QB room by himself going over the practice film. Nagy mentioned how it wasn't for show and the players had no idea staff would be doing room sweeps at midnight - it was just a genuine film junky trait that Mac has. That's wiring. Jeff Howe also has a cool piece out in the Athletic relaying how relentless Mac worked to get invited to the high school showcase camps, and how badly he wanted to prove he was better than the 5 star kids. It was definitely a cool read and sheds some insight into just how driven Mac is to compete and play football. I think that stuff plays just as much into a QB's ceiling as the physical and intellectual traits do.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
2,278
I do wonder if there is a way to build some program/game on a VR headset that would, as an example, flash for 1 second an image of a pre-snap defense and then maybe you ask the quarterback to make as many assessments of that defensive scheme as was possible, perhaps asking him about the likely read progressions, what kinds of defenses it likely wouldn't be, and so forth.

There has to be a way to at least make some attempt at measuring the visual processing of information.
Stanford is working on VR QB training.
View: https://youtu.be/0XKxvKEFBps

Edit: A quick search suggests there are several companies working on it.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,258
New York City
I do wonder if there is a way to build some program/game on a VR headset that would, as an example, flash for 1 second an image of a pre-snap defense and then maybe you ask the quarterback to make as many assessments of that defensive scheme as was possible, perhaps asking him about the likely read progressions, what kinds of defenses it likely wouldn't be, and so forth.

There has to be a way to at least make some attempt at measuring the visual processing of information.
Stanford developed a version of this for its QBs. No idea if it was effective (and judging by Stanford's performance the last couple of years some reasons to doubt the effectiveness).
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,173
I recall an older video about the Pats and how they tried to quantify things that were intangible or immeasurable like leadership, mental toughness etc and trying to measure those as part of player evaluation. Those things are obviously harder to quantify, but at least they weren't saying "this guys has great intangibles", it was more "this guy is a good leader and mentally tough". Is the obsession with the wonderlic still a thing? That's another test that is easy to compare between players, but I don't think it necessarily tells you what you want to know. Still, it's got a number attached to it and so it gets used.
It's been written that BB likes players who were chosen by their teammates to be captain. I suppose that could be an example of an unmeasurable, but tangible, indication of leadership.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,163
Both Jordan and Tiger were physically quite gifted. Jordan was doing those crazy athletic dunks amd moves, and Tiger came into the scene with dramatic long drives. Not saying they weren’t smart...they’re the + players on both axes. But Bird really seemed like ++ on game IQ and ? physically. He had a quickness and a maneuverability that was special, but his vision is what made him one of the GOATS, I think.
Yeah Jordan and Woods are definitely not cases of that. People love to play up the "oh he didn't make varisty at 14", but Jordan was a top 1% NBA athlete by the time he got there, and Woods basically changed golf because he treated it like an athletic endeavor that you prepared your body for with weights and cardio etc. instead of a skill you practiced between beers.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
13,736
Richmond, VA
I think there's more than just football IQ in the QB ceiling conversation; the way they're wired is also such a large component of it all. Are they wired to put in the work, study film, lead, compete and grind? Are they wired to handle adversity? Are they wired for mental toughness? There's been no shortage of guys who've had the physical ability to be NFL QBs, who could learn a playbook and read a coverage, but it was that other stuff that they just weren't ever going to embrace. I don't think there's any way to decouple a player's wiring from their ceiling. Like, how could you project Haskin's ceiling without taking into account how he's wired? Or Manziel? Jamarcus Russell? Josh Rosen? Like, Josh Rosen is a really smart dude with physical ability. But he just doesn't seem wired to be an NFL QB (and that's okay, too).

In that Nagy podcast I mentioned, as an aside, he relayed a pretty cool Mac anecdote from the Senior Bowl. They'd run player/team interviews until about 11:30pm, and then shut the facility down at midnight. On the nights Mac didn't have interviews, the Senior Bowl staff found him in the QB room by himself going over the practice film. Nagy mentioned how it wasn't for show and the players had no idea staff would be doing room sweeps at midnight - it was just a genuine film junky trait that Mac has. That's wiring. Jeff Howe also has a cool piece out in the Athletic relaying how relentless Mac worked to get invited to the high school showcase camps, and how badly he wanted to prove he was better than the 5 star kids. It was definitely a cool read and sheds some insight into just how driven Mac is to compete and play football. I think that stuff plays just as much into a QB's ceiling as the physical and intellectual traits do.
If athleticism and game IQ are the X and Y axes maybe the drive/competitiveness is the Z axis.

Bird and Brady both definitely ++ on the Z axis too. That’s maybe McCorkle doing late night film study...he’s never been an elite athlete, he’s always been smart, but he also has that drive.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
10,281
The Yay Area
Stanford developed a version of this for its QBs. No idea if it was effective (and judging by Stanford's performance the last couple of years some reasons to doubt the effectiveness).
That thing could be the best software ever written and it's still not going to overcome a lack of talent across Stanford's roster.
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
Yeah Jordan and Woods are definitely not cases of that. People love to play up the "oh he didn't make varisty at 14", but Jordan was a top 1% NBA athlete by the time he got there, and Woods basically changed golf because he treated it like an athletic endeavor that you prepared your body for with weights and cardio etc. instead of a skill you practiced between beers.
All the top golfers look more like body builders and not like John Daly these days... Even the women are jacked.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
13,736
Richmond, VA
As a "floor", my basketball comp here for McCorkle is maybe Jeremy Lin. Not a superstar by any stretch, but capable of being a real contributor if he stays healthy. If he comes in and outperforms 2020 Cam and the team succeeds, even if it's not on his back, the fanbase will probably experience some Macsanity. McCorksanity? Something something koolaid?

For baseball, oh I don't know, maybe he's Alex Cora. I mean, he probably won't be "the smartest guy" in football, but you get my drift.

If his floor is any lower, he's out of the league (or at least out of any starting gigs).

His ceiling is much higher,
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
45,222
Mac Jones 2nd pro day: Inside Mac Jones' audition for the Patriots and the NFL stage: 'The kid knows how to prepare' – The Athletic

Jones’ first pass of the day, however, remarkably scraped off the roof.

“The whole point was I’m a little tired of hearing ‘arm strength issues’ from people, so he’s like, ‘Let’s throw the heck out of it,'” Morris said. “I’m like, ‘Fine with me; let’s do it.’ The (first) ball hit the ceiling. I’ve never seen that happen. I’ve seen it happen on punts once or twice. He was throwing a go ball to the sideline from the middle of the field. He threw the crap out of it. It would have been a strike. That would have shaken certain people because it’s the first play, and you want a completion. He was like, ‘OK, let’s go; we’re about to nail this thing.'”
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
2,510
Worcester
Nice story- but here is a Who's Who ?
Morris, the founder of QB Country in Mobile, Ala., was Eli Manning’s backup at Ole Miss and trained him during the latter half of his NFL career. Morris has prepared Daniel Jones, Gardner Minshew, Jake Fromm, Paxton Lynch, Nick Mullens, A.J. McCarron and Matt Barkley for previous drafts.
 

LaszloKovacks

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 21, 2006
1,963
Los Angeles via Providence
I hated the idea of drafting him at #15 at the beginning of the draft content cycle. I warmed up to it a bit as we got closer and everyone was saying that he was going to go #3 to SF. He just reminded me of AJ McCarron and Colt McCoy. Not really sure why as I don't watch college football at all and couldn't even tell you what those guys looked like as draft prospects. But I do think there was a cursory judgement that took place for a lot of people where you take a look at the class as a whole and Mac is this doughy, goofy looking kid with amazing WR and it's easy to jump to a conclusion about him. I wanted Fields, and when you look at the 10-15 minute highlight clips of Fields vs. Jones, they seem pretty similar, but of course Fields can run a lot better and has a stronger natural strength about him.

But now that I've been taking a deep dive into Mac's tape and reading as much as I can about him, I've completely flipped. The kid is a straight baller. Holy shit, I am stunned at how good he was last year at Alabama. There are countless examples in the tape of Mac manipulating the game in his favor on a play by play basis. And what's really stunning is the amount of highlights on broken protections or when he is just pressured badly. For a guy that is sold as someone who can't freelance, he sure looks to me like someone who can handle pressure, work within the pocket and fire off perfectly placed cannonball blasts 40 yards down the field. Would he get more credit if instead of stepping up into the pocket he ran into the flat and made the same throw? The kid is ruthless and absolutely punishes the defense, even on plays the defense wins up front.

He's also ridiculously accurate. His balls are exactly where they need to be and he makes a living out of throwing guys open. Sure he had a great cast of pass-catchers around him, but you can find so many examples of Mac firing accurate passes with anticipation in a spot only his receiver can catch. I would say Waddle and Smith benefited as much from Mac throwing them open, or making anticipatory throws that hit them in stride for the half second they become open between a corner and safety, than Mac benefited from their separation skills.

His best style comp really does seem to be Peyton Manning. I know that sounds crazy, but I see more and more similarities every time I watch him.
 
Last edited:

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,861
Maine
How were Fields weapons? Or Lawrences?
(Serious question)
I assume quite good. And yet Jones gets dinged for "Well yea HE played with great weapons".
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,163
How were Fields weapons? Or Lawrences?
(Serious question)
I assume quite good. And yet Jones gets dinged for "Well yea HE played with great weapons".
Alabama had 2 of the 3 best WRs in College probably the best RB in College and the best O-Line by a massive margin, the difference between his supporting cast and theirs was significant.

And it's less he gets dinged for his weapons than that people note that his weapons and line meant he rarely had to face the type of adversity that tests a QB without elite physical tools (frequent quick pressure, tight windows, lack of separation, etc.). That matters because it can make it difficult to evaluate his tape, and means that his stats don't tell you much, so you have limited data points for analysis. Being good in a perfect situation is good, but it doesn't necessarily translate to a bad situation. So people wonder... can he deal with messy pockets, can he deal with edge pressure flushing him out, can he deal with taking a bunch of hits, can he make a throw to a guy who isn't entirely open, can he make adapt when his first 2 reads are covered, etc. which are more important in the NFL where you rarely have guys get wide open, or get a long time in a clean pocket.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,035
This whole situation felt so familiar to me and I couldnt figure out why. I finally got it.

Jaylen Brown.

The entire lead up to the draft, the only guy I didnt want the Celtics to pick was Jaylen Brown. Not because I had any clue if he was good - I didnt - but because this board had an almost universal dislike for him and had steered me into the same train of thought.

We were wrong.

Here we are several years later, and its played out the same way. The majority of people in this forum (myself included) dont watch enough college football - especially Alabama - to form a valid opinion. Yet...we all hated him heading into the draft.

I'm looking forward to his meteoric rise to stardom.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,173
Nice story- but here is a Who's Who ?
Morris, the founder of QB Country in Mobile, Ala., was Eli Manning’s backup at Ole Miss and trained him during the latter half of his NFL career. Morris has prepared Daniel Jones, Gardner Minshew, Jake Fromm, Paxton Lynch, Nick Mullens, A.J. McCarron and Matt Barkley for previous drafts.
Actually, considering that they all got drafted and made a few bucks in the NFL despite apparently lacking first-rate NFL talent suggests that Morris is excellent at "getting guys drafted." The QB equivalent of an SAT tutor.
 

lostjumper

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 27, 2009
1,253
Concord, NH
Loved this story. Everything I hear about him post-draft makes me like this kid more and more. I'm so excited for camp.
Brady's biggest asset to me was always his drive. To this day he remains motivated and has a chip on his shoulder.

I love that Mac Jones heard scouts labeling his arm as a weakness, and saying F them and hitting the ceiling with his first throw. Mac Jones won't be Brady obviously, but that sounds like a Brady thing.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,861
Maine
Alabama had 2 of the 3 best WRs in College probably the best RB in College and the best O-Line by a massive margin, the difference between his supporting cast and theirs was significant.

And it's less he gets dinged for his weapons than that people note that his weapons and line meant he rarely had to face the type of adversity that tests a QB without elite physical tools (frequent quick pressure, tight windows, lack of separation, etc.). That matters because it can make it difficult to evaluate his tape, and means that his stats don't tell you much, so you have limited data points for analysis. Being good in a perfect situation is good, but it doesn't necessarily translate to a bad situation. So people wonder... can he deal with messy pockets, can he deal with edge pressure flushing him out, can he deal with taking a bunch of hits, can he make a throw to a guy who isn't entirely open, can he make adapt when his first 2 reads are covered, etc. which are more important in the NFL where you rarely have guys get wide open, or get a long time in a clean pocket.
But havent there been alot of evidence showing this to be untrue? (regarding Pocket stuff)

And Are we sure his WRs werent simply Really good or great as opposed to him helping them be Awesome. (Chicken Egg.....somewhere in between).

Not arguing that Bama has great college players. just adding nuance to the idea.

Plus as I have said in previous posts. He isnt going to a "Bad Situation". He is in fact going to about as good a Situation as a Rookie QB can go to in the NFL (save for some A+ WR weapons).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,163
But havent there been alot of evidence showing this to be untrue? (regarding Pocket stuff)

And Are we sure his WRs werent simply Really good or great as opposed to him helping them be Awesome. (Chicken Egg.....somewhere in between).

Not arguing that Bama has great college players. just adding nuance to the idea.

Plus as I have said in previous posts. He isnt going to a "Bad Situation". He is in fact going to about as good a Situation as a Rookie QB can go to in the NFL (save for some A+ WR weapons).
As to the pocket stuff.. no not really, there is some tape of him navigating the pocket well and there is a good amount of tape of him flailing at moderate pressure, it is a legit concern for a guy who probably won't be able to break the pocket and run or force teams to rush less players to keep a spy. It's one he can learn to overcome through technique though.

And not really, we know how good his WRs are because we saw them with other QBs... and also, we have tape, so we can for example see them take a 3 yard pass avoid multiple tackles and get a big gain, or obliterate a press at the line and get wide open... a QB can help his WRs some, but truly dominant WRs are pretty easy to spot on tape regardless of QB play.

And no NE isn't a bad situation... it's still the NFL, the comparative talent levels are very different in that even a great NFL line isn't like a college line in terms of time and quality of a pocket, and even elite WRs and TEs in the NFL don't get open like top College WRs. Also, every CB/S/LB in the league pretty much is better than what you face on average in college.

Jones could be very good.... it doesn't change that his situation at Alabama meant that the vast majority of his snaps aren't particularly useful in grading how he'd play in the NFL.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,649
How were Fields weapons? Or Lawrences?
(Serious question)
I assume quite good. And yet Jones gets dinged for "Well yea HE played with great weapons".
They all had incredible weapons and supporting casts. Jones had a better cast around him. But he also played against MUCH better competition. People keep forgetting that.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,163
They all had incredible weapons and supporting casts. Jones had a better cast around him. But he also played against MUCH better competition. People keep forgetting that.
That's definitely not at all true. Fields had the hardest schedule of defenses played by a pretty significant margin. In fact it graded out as the toughest schedule of any drafted QB in a decade.