The Michael McCorkle "Mac" Jones Thread

djbayko

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
17,313
Los Angeles, CA
One issue though is, if you pull out the 2nd Jets and Browns games (and that week for everyone), we drop to towards the bottom.
What happens when you do this trick for all teams though? Maybe the other teams are just as consistent as your post is implying, but maybe not.

Edit: late
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
33,276
Melrose, MA
Is that really true? I mean, we had Cam last year, he went 7-8, but that team was indisputably much less talented than this one on both sides of the ball, and I guess Jacoby Brissett went 1-1.

Jimmy G went a perfect 2-0, Matt Cassell went 10-5. The Patriots have generally had a lot of success with any QB they throw in there when the supporting talent is good.

Non-Brady QBs are 20-13.
Do you not see the cherry picking here? "All non-Brady QBs have been able to win with the Pats. Well, not Cam last year, but we'll blame that on the team."
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,515
Do you not see the cherry picking here? "All non-Brady QBs have been able to win with the Pats. Well, not Cam last year, but we'll blame that on the team."
Cam won fine, he went 7-8, and we know how much worse that roster was because we've seen how much we upgraded it this year, and the defense was 26th in DVOA. The point he was replying to was that this year's team is succeeding in part due to Mac playing well, but mostly because we have arguably the best D in the league. Even if we discredit all the improvements in offensive personnel (though we can all see that they made a lot of them), the team won 7 games with a terrible D, which would imply that they did a good job of getting the most out of their QB situation.
The point was all the other QBs we knew had a good team because we saw it with and without Brady.

The discussion was: "Is Mac's success in a good system with a good defense significantly different than the success we've had with past QBs relative to their defense/system".

Edit- to make it more clear. I was responding to an argument that Mac was unlike any QB we had before because they won, I pointed out, it wasn't really true, past QBs won fine, and as we know wins generally have little to do with a QB, and a lot more to do with the overall talent level of the team. When we played backups in good teamwide seasons they won, when we had a terrible all around season... we still went around 500. The point isn't anything about the quality of Mac vs the other QBs, it's that wins aren't a QB stat and shouldn't be treated as one, we should grade QBs on how they perform, not if their team wins.
 
Last edited:

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
36,740
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that wins are a QB stat but they are the most important stat in the sport.

The original video, which is kind of a BS argument that few people seriously make (the talking head clips including Rex Ryan are aimed at a very large, very sympathetic non Patriot audience who likely value the shade being thrown regardless of accuracy) suggested that the Patriots weren't to be taken seriously because Jones can't throw the deep ball. I stand by my view that there is no one way to win and that you can have efficient, effective QB play even without throwing deep regularly (although to @Cellar-Door's point, you need other strengths and explosive plays are still the goal). And I know full well that if the Pats falter from here we may have to re-examine the view.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,222
around the way
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that wins are a QB stat but they are the most important stat in the sport.

The original video, which is kind of a BS argument that few people seriously make (the talking head clips including Rex Ryan are aimed at a very large, very sympathetic non Patriot audience who likely value the shade being thrown regardless of accuracy) suggested that the Patriots weren't to be taken seriously because Jones can't throw the deep ball. I stand by my view that there is no one way to win and that you can have efficient, effective QB play even without throwing deep regularly (although to @Cellar-Door's point, you need other strengths and explosive plays are still the goal). And I know full well that if the Pats falter from here we may have to re-examine the view.
It's entirely fair to call out that there is more than one way to skin a cat. You see it in every sport--teams that don't follow conventional wisdom but still win. Last year's Sox were chasers, poor defenders at a bunch of positions, had mediocre-at-best starting pitching and still somehow went pretty deep.

CD's point, I think, and my belief is that being non-threatening in the deep and intermediate areas reduces our margin of error. Yes, the team has been pretty successful in executing long drives, particularly lately. But if you have to execute 15 play drives every time, it doesn't take much to derail the drive. Frankly, that's the basis for Belichick's bend-dont-break philosophy on defense--force the offenses to bang out first downs until they don't.

Mac has improved greatly in looking deeper and keeping teams honest. But he won't be an elite QB until he starts converting chunks more frequently. Easy points are gold. Hard-earned, punch the clock, trench warfare drives are satisfying AF, but they're hard to repeat. A holding call here, drop there, batted pass, whatever. Too many variables.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
5,241
So why do people keep suggesting that the Pats under Mac don't have "chunk" or "explosive plays" or "non threatening"? I realize thats a narrative, but the numbers don't bear it out.

The Pats have the third-most 20-plus yard passing plays this season with 41 and Mac is 5th in intermediate throws (10-19 yards) with a PFF grade of 90 on those intermediate passes. His NO game brings down his grade on the 20+ yard passes but its been much better the last 5 games.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,780
I think people see the 20+ yard plays on screens and such and think that's not a product of Mac.

But he's doing fine. More than fine, actually.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
46,071
People watch EVERY Mac play and think his chunk plays are different somehow. Then they watch highlights of other teams and think the entire game goes like that.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,780
People watch EVERY Mac play and think his chunk plays are different somehow. Then they watch highlights of other teams and think the entire game goes like that.
I agree. Other teams get big plays out of screens and slants and short crossers all the time too.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,473
Mansfield MA
So why do people keep suggesting that the Pats under Mac don't have "chunk" or "explosive plays" or "non threatening"? I realize thats a narrative, but the numbers don't bear it out.

The Pats have the third-most 20-plus yard passing plays this season with 41 and Mac is 5th in intermediate throws (10-19 yards) with a PFF grade of 90 on those intermediate passes. His NO game brings down his grade on the 20+ yard passes but its been much better the last 5 games.
Hoyer has 5 of those 41 and another 2 were thrown by WRs on trick plays, so Mac personally is probably closer to average. I think the larger issue is consistency. They lit up the Jets (the second time) and the Browns but had zero pass plays of 20 yards last week against one of the worst defenses in football.

I don't really care about the long pass plays in and of themselves, but it is difficult to succeed without them, but the offensive inconsistency bears out in other statistics. By EPA they've been the best offense in football the past 5 weeks, but that's all driven by the NYJ and CLE games; they've been below-average the other 3, and below-average in 8 of 11 games overall. But when they've been good they've been amazing, and when they've been not so good they've been mediocre rather than terrible, which has been good enough with the excellent defense.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
46,071
By EPA they've been the best offense in football the past 5 weeks, but that's all driven by the NYJ and CLE games; they've been below-average the other 3, and below-average in 8 of 11 games overall. But when they've been good they've been amazing, and when they've been not so good they've been mediocre rather than terrible, which has been good enough with the excellent defense.
Can you tell us (I don't have the data you are looking at) if the other teams in the top 5 the last 5 weeks also had good games and bad games or is this unique to NE?

Because it seems like you're saying NE is only ranked high because they were REALLY good some times and not as good other times, to which I say--Uh, yeah. That's how averaging the things out works.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,473
Mansfield MA
Can you tell us (I don't have the data you are looking at) if the other teams in the top 5 the last 5 weeks also had good games and bad games or is this unique to NE?

Because it seems like you're saying NE is only ranked high because they were REALLY good some times and not as good other times, to which I say--Uh, yeah. That's how averaging the things out works.
I don't have hard numbers, but from looking at a dozen or so teams, our offensive performance is unusually top-heavy. We are +61 in PFRef EPA, good for 16th in the NFL. Of that +61, the games vs NYJ and CLE make up ... +69 of it. Every team is worse if you throw out their top 2 games, but looking at the four other teams that have about the same overall EPA (between 60 and 64), TEN's two best games combined are about +35, Browns about +43, Ravens +42, Raiders +36. Even the Bucs, the #1 team by EPA (at +126) and with a ridiculous +41 game, are only +58 in their top 2 games.

Of course it's not bad to have two great games, but the issue is the offense is a net negative aside from those. And note that despite the "A" in EPA, the average team per PFRef EPA is +47, so being -8 is pretty bad rather than just a tick below average. The question moving forward is whether the offense performs more like the outlier-distorted average or the below-average median, and honestly I don't have any data to suggest which one has more predictive value. Last Thursday was a disappointing negative data point, with a weak performance against a terrible Falcons D, but it's just one more data point.
 

azsoxpatsfan

Does not enjoy the go
SoSH Member
May 23, 2014
2,819
Can you tell us (I don't have the data you are looking at) if the other teams in the top 5 the last 5 weeks also had good games and bad games or is this unique to NE?

Because it seems like you're saying NE is only ranked high because they were REALLY good some times and not as good other times, to which I say--Uh, yeah. That's how averaging the things out works.
I’ve only recently started getting into NFL statistics more advanced that yards and tds, so I’m not sure what site is footballs version of fangraphs, but here are some numbers I found:

Over the past five weeks, the top five teams in EPA/play are, in order, the Patriots, Colts, Chargers, Eagles, Packers. By week, these teams ranked (in EPA/play):

Patriots: 1, 22, 16, 1, 18
Colts: 14, 21, 1, 17, 3
Chargers: 23, 4, 15, 4 (bye week 7)
Eagles: 15, 3, 6, 6, 15
Packers: 11, 5, 13, 10, 1

So the Pats have two #1 finishes, vs the Jets and the Browns, and 3 below average finishes. The Colts have a number one, also vs. the Jets, a number 3 vs. the Bills, a 14, and two below average. Chargers, Eagles, and Packers combined for only one #1 (Packers loss to the Vikings), but also only one below average week (Chargers vs. Patriots).

Overall, it seems the Pats do have the largest differential between good and bad weeks, with the Colts right there as well, while the other top five teams over the top five weeks were slightly more consistent, but not by a ton (only one below average (17 or worse), but three #15s).
 

azsoxpatsfan

Does not enjoy the go
SoSH Member
May 23, 2014
2,819
I don't have hard numbers, but from looking at a dozen or so teams, our offensive performance is unusually top-heavy. We are +61 in PFRef EPA, good for 16th in the NFL. Of that +61, the games vs NYJ and CLE make up ... +69 of it. Every team is worse if you throw out their top 2 games, but looking at the four other teams that have about the same overall EPA (between 60 and 64), TEN's two best games combined are about +35, Browns about +43, Ravens +42, Raiders +36. Even the Bucs, the #1 team by EPA (at +126) and with a ridiculous +41 game, are only +58 in their top 2 games.

Of course it's not bad to have two great games, but the issue is the offense is a net negative aside from those. And note that despite the "A" in EPA, the average team per PFRef EPA is +47, so being -8 is pretty bad rather than just a tick below average. The question moving forward is whether the offense performs more like the outlier-distorted average or the below-average median, and honestly I don't have any data to suggest which one has more predictive value. Last Thursday was a disappointing negative data point, with a weak performance against a terrible Falcons D, but it's just one more data point.
I could be wrong, but the +69 and +61 look to be expected points, not EPA, although unsure if those are different or if PFRef just calls EPA EXP.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,248
I think including the first several weeks of the season is going to paint this current offense pretty unfairly.

I think they can float between below average to really good, but the horrendous days are (hopefully) behind them.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,473
Mansfield MA
I could be wrong, but the +69 and +61 look to be expected points, not EPA, although unsure if those are different or if PFRef just calls EPA EXP.
PFRef uses "EPA" in their play-by-play data to denote "Expected Points After" (vs Expected Points Before), so they look to be just using the EXP abbreviation to avoid confusion. Their nomenclature says "expected points contributed" but the methodology is essentially the same as EPA as used by others. Note that because of the way EPA is calculated (based on probabilities / averages), it is going to vary from source to source, though RBSDM EPA will tell substantially the same story.

I think including the first several weeks of the season is going to paint this current offense pretty unfairly.

I think they can float between below average to really good, but the horrendous days are (hopefully) behind them.
This is part of the question with the offense currently. Getting great performances 2 out of every 5 games, even with the other three games mediocre, is still pretty great. Getting great performances 2/11 games, with the other 9 mediocre, is not so good. If you think there's a reason to throw out the offense performance the first six weeks, you're going to be a lot higher on the offense.

Personally, I'm not seeing a sea change. I'm seeing two extraordinary games sandwiched around performances that are basically like the mediocre ones we saw early in the year. By PRRef EPA, the last five weeks contain by far NE's two best games, but also three of their four worst.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,222
around the way
There's a bit of an undercurrent of "why the fuck are people down on Mac" around here lately, and it's odd.

I don't think that anyone is particularly down on Mac. He's by far the best rookie QB, the team is rolling, and he's a league average QB as a rookie. These are all great things.

But his best comp right now is Taylor Heinecke. Pretty identical numbers through 11 games. And that's on a shitty team.

We should expect some rookie limitations and be ok with it.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
4,444
Imaginationland
After this week they play generally rated top 3 defenses three weeks in a row so I suppose we will get answers soon.
We'll probably learn what we already know - this is an average offense. You can get pretty far with a top defense, top special teams and an average offense, especially if the latter has potential to perform better later in the year (not unreasonable given that we've got a rookie QB and lots of new pieces still being integrated into the offense).
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,755
Hingham, MA
We'll probably learn what we already know - this is an average offense. You can get pretty far with a top defense, top special teams and an average offense, especially if the latter has potential to perform better later in the year (not unreasonable given that we've got a rookie QB and lots of new pieces still being integrated into the offense).
Right. The Pats are #16 DVOA offense. #2 defense. I forget special teams rank. And overall DVOA #3
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
21,486
A Scud Away from Hell
Mac mentions his OL in every press conference and here's the reason why:

View: https://twitter.com/ezlazar/status/1465332862819913728?s=20


"During the #Patriots' six-game winning streak, Mac Jones has only been under pressure on 22.9% of his drop-backs (third-best) and the Pats O-Line ranks number one in pass-blocking efficiency, per
@PFF

Pass protection has gone from a perceived weakness to a real strength."
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
16,829
The state of QB play in the NFL is quite bad. How many people would you have over Mac, right now, as your QB? Trying to be as fair as possible.

Definitely prefer over Mac: Josh Allen, Joe Burrow, Lamar Jackson, Patrick Mahomes, Derek Carr, Justin Herbert, Dak Prescott, Aaron Rodgers, Kirk Cousins, Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, Kyler Murray, Matthew Stafford

Borderline: Ryan Tannehill, Matt Ryan

Definitely prefer Mac over: Zac Wilson, Tua, Ben Roethlisberger, Baker Mayfield, Trevor Lawrence, Carson Wentz, Tyrod Taylor, Teddy Bridgewater, Jalen Hurts, Daniel Jones, Taylor Heineke, Jared Goff, Andy Dalton, Trevor Siemian, Cam Newton, Jimmy G

Out of that first group, a decent amount of them (Allen, Lamar, Carr, Burrow, Herbert) have had games way worse than anything Mac has done this season. He has been remarkably consistent for a rookie and I feel like he could end up as a Top 10 QB by the end of the year.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
5,241
Mac is the number #4 rated QB all season by PFF, on a rookie deal, at 23 - and you think Matt Ryan and Ryan Tannehill are "borderline"?

I'd take Allen, Mahomes, Carr, Herbert, Prescott, Rodgers, Brady and Murray - thats it. Wilson if he is healthy and back to his playing prime - but he looks terrible right now.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,780
@Kliq - how many of those QBs would you take given the contract situation? Like maybe - MAYBE - I'd take Kirk Cousins over Mac Jones right now. But when you factor in their disparate salaries, no chance.

Cap hits (2021-2022):

Cousins:
2021: 31m
2022: 45m

Jones:
2021: 2.8m
2022: 3.5m
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
51,728
New York City
@Kliq - how many of those QBs would you take given the contract situation? Like maybe - MAYBE - I'd take Kirk Cousins over Mac Jones right now. But when you factor in their disparate salaries, no chance.

Cap hits (2021-2022):

Cousins:
2021: 31m
2022: 45m

Jones:
2021: 2.8m
2022: 3.5m
Cousins isn't in the same galaxy as Mac at those prices. Stafford isn't either. Belichick wouldn't trade Mac for Cousins in any world.

I think you take Allen, Mahomes, Carr, Brady, Murray, Dak, and Rodgers. And Lamar with some reservations because he's not good right now. But Mac on a rookie deal is exactly where a team wants to be. There is no bigger advantage in the NFL than a solid Qb on a rookie deal.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,515
The state of QB play in the NFL is quite bad. How many people would you have over Mac, right now, as your QB? Trying to be as fair as possible.

Definitely prefer over Mac: Josh Allen, Joe Burrow, Lamar Jackson, Patrick Mahomes, Derek Carr, Justin Herbert, Dak Prescott, Aaron Rodgers, Kirk Cousins, Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, Kyler Murray, Matthew Stafford

Borderline: Ryan Tannehill, Matt Ryan

Definitely prefer Mac over: Zac Wilson, Tua, Ben Roethlisberger, Baker Mayfield, Trevor Lawrence, Carson Wentz, Tyrod Taylor, Teddy Bridgewater, Jalen Hurts, Daniel Jones, Taylor Heineke, Jared Goff, Andy Dalton, Trevor Siemian, Cam Newton, Jimmy G

Out of that first group, a decent amount of them (Allen, Lamar, Carr, Burrow, Herbert) have had games way worse than anything Mac has done this season. He has been remarkably consistent for a rookie and I feel like he could end up as a Top 10 QB by the end of the year.
I think some of them it is hard to tell, would some of those QBs look a lot better with a top O-line and good coaching? Are we talking this year or a longer time frame, contracts matter? Long term I might still prefer Lawrence for example. I think he has a ton of talent and in this situation he might produce more, while I might drop Cousins for example based on his deal/age, same for Stafford.

QB play can be hard to judge when guys have bad teams/coaches, and I'm not sure I'd write off the other rookies if I was looking long term. Some rookies come in and play at like 80-90% of what their NFL ceiling ends up being, some play at like 10% of their NFL ceiling.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
29,535
Here
Carr I think is extremely close, and Allen is working with top 3 weaponry, so I mean probably but I really dunno. If you're asking me to build this team moving forward around Mac or Josh Allen, I'm taking Mac. I'd say Mac right now is top 10 and for future rankings is top 5-6, with potential to improve. I mean he's played 12 games, it's kind of amazing.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,780
Current ranks:

- Comp %: #3
- Pass yds per game: #10
- Pass TD: #13
- Yds/att: #12
- Passer rating: #14

Mac's last 9 games:

187-261 (71.7%), 2,113 yds, 8.1 y/a, 14 td, 5 int, 105.4 rating, team is averaging 31.3 points per game.

I don't know too many QBs right now, especially given what they're paying him, that I'd prefer over Mac Jones.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,872
Philadelphia
The answer definitely changes a lot depending on whether you factor age and contract situation into the equation and whether you're talking about this year or just an asset to have for the longer term.

If we're thinking longer term and not factoring in contracts, I don't think the list of guys I would take over Mac right now is very long. Mahomes, Allen, Herbert, Kyler are obvious for me. Probably Joe Burrow and Dak Prescott. I would still think seriously about Lawrence. I would not trade Mac for Lamar and definitely not for any of the non-Lawrence QBs drafted in the past year.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,222
around the way
To BJs point above, the list of "who would you take over Mac" shrinks considerably once you factor in 5 years of control at #15 money. Even if you're not the biggest Mac stan in the world, you have to admit that he's a damn good value proposition.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,780
Cousins isn't in the same galaxy as Mac at those prices. Stafford isn't either. Belichick wouldn't trade Mac for Cousins in any world.

I think you take Allen, Mahomes, Carr, Brady, Murray, Dak, and Rodgers. And Lamar with some reservations because he's not good right now. But Mac on a rookie deal is exactly where a team wants to be. There is no bigger advantage in the NFL than a solid Qb on a rookie deal.
Amen and amen. This team is in great shape right now. Rookie QB that is playing like a top 10 QB. Team is gelling.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
7,835
Needham, MA
What's the criteria here? To win one game, for the rest of the 2021 season, or for the remainder of the player's career? Answers will differ depending on how you lay that out. Longer term the list is probably pretty small, as noted factoring in age and contract status there probably aren't a lot of guys BB would swap Mac for right now. If you are talking about a hypothetical one game to win for the fate of the world, the list is a lot longer.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
16,829
Mac is the number #4 rated QB all season by PFF, on a rookie deal, at 23 - and you think Matt Ryan and Ryan Tannehill are "borderline"?

I'd take Allen, Mahomes, Carr, Herbert, Prescott, Rodgers, Brady and Murray - thats it. Wilson if he is healthy and back to his playing prime - but he looks terrible right now.
I was basically trying to be as impartial as possible so I wanted to see at the very least where Mac would rank, favoring some QBs with more experience and a longer track record over him.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
16,829
What's the criteria here? To win one game, for the rest of the 2021 season, or for the remainder of the player's career? Answers will differ depending on how you lay that out. Longer term the list is probably pretty small, as noted factoring in age and contract status there probably aren't a lot of guys BB would swap Mac for right now. If you are talking about a hypothetical one game to win for the fate of the world, the list is a lot longer.
My thinking was just looking purely at who would I want for the rest of the season if I was trying to win, not factoring in long-term potential or contracts.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,515
Carr I think is extremely close, and Allen is working with top 3 weaponry, so I mean probably but I really dunno. If you're asking me to build this team moving forward around Mac or Josh Allen, I'm taking Mac. I'd say Mac right now is top 10 and for future rankings is top 5-6, with potential to improve. I mean he's played 12 games, it's kind of amazing.
I think this is a bit much. You can't knock Allen for his WRs, then ignore that Mac is also in a great situation.
Mac has been really good for this team, and he's a huge asset given his contract.... I also think the system, coaching and team around him makes a huge difference. I mean an easy way to look at is this... how many of the QBs on that list have as good an O-line as the Patriots, how many have such a heavy run/pass balance, etc. And to me that is a bigger driver of QB success than pass catching weapons. Basically every QB in the league is much better when they have protection, regardless of their targets. And one only needs to look at Tannehill to see the impact of having a good run game and limited passing shots using primarily the particular plays that the QB is most comfortable with (and the flip side... when their line declined and Henry got hurt, Tannehill stumbled)

Mac is good, we should be happy to have him... he's not an elite QB yet, and isn't asked to play like one.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,780
Mac is good, we should be happy to have him... he's not an elite QB yet, and isn't asked to play like one.
I'll repeat this from an earlier post:

Mac's last 9 games:

187-261 (71.7%), 2,113 yds, 8.1 y/a, 14 td, 5 int, 105.4 rating, team is averaging 31.3 points per game.

What about that stat line, and team offensive performance, isn't "elite"?

The 105.4 rating would be 3rd in the NFL right now. His 8.1 y/a would be 7th. His 71.7% would be 2nd.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
12,740
He certainly looks like a guy in that 10-15 range right now. Efficient, a few rookie mistakes. I feel like he’s not someone who is going to singlehandedly win you the game but I am not sitting on eggshells watching him terrified that he’s going to blow the game up and lose it - which sounds like a low bar but there are tons of well-paid or highly touted QBs destroying their team’s chances every week.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,515
I'll repeat this from an earlier post:

Mac's last 9 games:

187-261 (71.7%), 2,113 yds, 8.1 y/a, 14 td, 5 int, 105.4 rating, team is averaging 31.3 points per game.

What about that stat line, and team offensive performance, isn't "elite"?

The 105.4 rating would be 3rd in the NFL right now. His 8.1 y/a would be 7th. His 71.7% would be 2nd.
Because cherrypicking stats (some of them not particularly meaningful and team based) over a small number of games without regard to team or opponents doesn't do much?
I mean, I didn't think Tannehill was an elite QB last year despite PFF loving him because I understand context?

I really don't get why "really good for a rookie, good NFL starter" isn't enough for people and they have to find a way that he's OMG THE BEST IN THE LEAGUE !!!!!111!!!W!!!!

Edit- and to go into more detail. To me an elite QB is one who can sustain high level performance regardless of supporting cast, game state, etc. over a long period. So Joe Flacco can have a really good season and win a SB.. he isn't elite, Stafford can put up huge numbers... not elite because when his line struggles he fall apart. Rodgers, Brady, elite QBs because it takes a whole lot of dysfunction for them to struggle. Tannehill, not elite because when it comes down to situations where he NEEDS to throw and the defense knows it he struggles with anything but an immaculate pocket. An elite QB is one who can go out there with a subpar line, mediocre or worse weapons, in situations where he has to throw because his defense is bad and execute more than not. I don't think Mac is anywhere near there yet, but most QB's aren't. He's really good at doing the things a QB needs to do to be a positive on a team with a good defense. Since we are a team with a good defense that makes him an excellent fit, and both the team and his stats will benefit.
 
Last edited:

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
21,268
Newton
The thing that's hard to quantify with Mac is nature vs. nature -- how much of this is coaching vs. just who he is as an athlete.

I mean, he has a lot of the raw tools Brady had at this age -- great decision-making, solid pocket awareness, not a gun for an arm but a nice touch, and enough humility to tuck rather than sling it. At the same time, I think he has a much more efficient and mature system around him than Brady had in 2001. That team was great, but they didn't have two great RBs. And Henry (and Jonnu) are way more talented than Jermaine Wiggins. Those are weapons Brady just didn't have. I also think McDaniels is a way better OC than Weiss ever was.

In discussing his ceiling, what I can't quite tell is how much of the burning desire to compete he shares with Brady -- I mean, that guy probably found a way to feel slighted by the lunch lady for the way she served him peas in grammar school. I mention that because I think it was that quality that elevated Brady from a performer like Mac is now to the 2007 guy he's been for the majority of his career -- but without being some egomaniac like Favre or Rodgers. Does Mac have that? Does anyone? I'm not sure even Belichick knows at this point.

Beyond all the comparisons, tho, I think the more interesting thing--and something we maybe undervalued the last few years as Brady went supernova--is how much Belichick is responsible for Brady becoming Brady. Maybe we're about to find out.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,872
Philadelphia
Because cherrypicking stats (some of them not particularly meaningful and team based) over a small number of games without regard to team or opponents doesn't do much?
I mean, I didn't think Tannehill was an elite QB last year despite PFF loving him because I understand context?

I really don't get why "really good for a rookie, good NFL starter" isn't enough for people and they have to find a way that he's OMG THE BEST IN THE LEAGUE !!!!!111!!!W!!!!

Edit- and to go into more detail. To me an elite QB is one who can sustain high level performance regardless of supporting cast, game state, etc. over a long period. So Joe Flacco can have a really good season and win a SB.. he isn't elite, Stafford can put up huge numbers... not elite because when his line struggles he fall apart. Rodgers, Brady, elite QBs because it takes a whole lot of dysfunction for them to struggle. Tannehill, not elite because when it comes down to situations where he NEEDS to throw and the defense knows it he struggles with anything but an immaculate pocket. An elite QB is one who can go out there with a subpar line, mediocre or worse weapons, in situations where he has to throw because his defense is bad and execute more than not. I don't think Mac is anywhere near there yet, but most QB's aren't. He's really good at doing the things a QB needs to do to be a positive on a team with a good defense. Since we are a team with a good defense that makes him an excellent fit, and both the team and his stats will benefit.
Well said. Elite is kind of a meaningless term if Mac Jones (in his current, rookie form at least) qualifies.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
5,569
Palo Alto
Per PFF, yesterday was Mac's worst game. I mean, really?

I don't buy into PFF at all but my impression is most fans don't use it as an objective measure of quality but rather as either a meme to hype their own guys when the grade is good or as an object lesson in why "next gen stats" are dumb when the grade is bad.

Aside, the fake precision (51.9? You sure Mac wasn't a 54.3 yesterday?) always cracks me up.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,538
How does PFF account for the fact that the Myers completion was a route adjustment by both QB and WR? Seems like they are just assuming Mac screwed up, which was not the case.
 

ragnarok725

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2003
5,397
Somerville MA
How does PFF account for the fact that the Myers completion was a route adjustment by both QB and WR? Seems like they are just assuming Mac screwed up, which was not the case.
I feel like that ball was pretty clearly not where Mac intended it to be. Jakobi had a step or two on Byard coming across the field, and instead of leading him further towards the sideline, the ball was just long and behind Jakobi. Even with the inaccuracy, I don't know that Byard had a chance at a PBU, and Meyers obviously made a great adjustment. But I don't think you give Mac credit on that - there's no way he intended that ball when there was a much easier completion with a better leading ball.
Some discussion on these points:

View: https://twitter.com/PFF_Steve/status/1465354930038923270


View: https://twitter.com/PFF_Steve/status/1465356165060120580


I personally prefer PFF - but it has its own quirks like Mac not getting credit for the Bourne contested TD throw
The PFF scores seem a bit lower than I'd go, but yesterday's game was in the bottom half of games he's played. The results were great, but it hinged on a number of things going his way that maybe shouldn't have, which is what PFF is picking up on.

In some ways, it makes me optimistic. The fact that the team was that successful when the running game was shut down and Mac had a sub-par performance is pretty astounding. The screen game was tremendous. Jakobi and Bourne both had huge games with some great plays. The OL did a tremendous job in pass protection We're getting complimentary team performances that are yielding wins, without everything going perfectly.

It honestly makes me think that if they get it all going at the same time in the playoffs they could very realistically win the Super Bowl.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
33,276
Melrose, MA
To me an elite QB is one who can sustain high level performance regardless of supporting cast, game state, etc. over a long period.
Mac's not elite, but if you ding too hard for supporting cast then even Brady might not be elite.
Per PFF, yesterday was Mac's worst game. I mean, really?
I think pretty fair. I didn't expect it to be his worst grade, and there are ways the PFF system seems to ding him unfairly*, but he benefitted from bad defense and some luck.

* Apparently he got no credit for the great throw to Bourne for the TD, because Bourne needed to make a great play to make the contested catch. I think the throw was good enough that he should get some credit, unless Mac is somehow to blame for the also great coverage.