The Michael McCorkle "Mac" Jones Thread

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I doubt this means much in the grand scheme. Mac needs to get better in many areas. But I love how much his teammates seem to like and respect him.

View: https://twitter.com/MikeReiss/status/1483169102252457993
Kid sounds like he couldn't be more impressive off the field and that's such an underrated part of being a quarterback. It's the first aspect actual players cite when talking about how the legends of the position impacted their teams.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
36,703
Melrose, MA
BTW, has there been a more terrible media interview than Mac? Even if BB though Mac sucked, he'd probably comnsider keeping him on as starting QB because of his ability to project friendly vibe at media interviews while saying absolutely nothing of substance.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,170
Hingham, MA
Kid sounds like he couldn't be more impressive off the field and that's such an underrated part of being a quarterback. It's the first aspect actual players cite when talking about how the legends of the position impacted their teams.
Yeah I don’t want to make too much of it - the players loved Cam Newton too, or at least it seemed so publicly. But it feels like Mac really earned the respect of the locker room which feels very important as a rookie. It wasn’t like 10 year vet Newton who had already earned respect league-wide.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Yeah I don’t want to make too much of it - the players loved Cam Newton too, or at least it seemed so publicly. But it feels like Mac really earned the respect of the locker room which feels very important as a rookie. It wasn’t like 10 year vet Newton who had already earned respect league-wide.
I think you can be great off the field and suck so it has no material impact on the team, but if you're actually a good player at that position, leadership and building connections can make a real difference.
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
5,543
Overland Park, KS
BTW, has there been a more terrible media interview than Mac? Even if BB though Mac sucked, he'd probably comnsider keeping him on as starting QB because of his ability to project friendly vibe at media interviews while saying absolutely nothing of substance.
Brady did this for 20 years, he excelled at saying nothing most of the time.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
36,703
Melrose, MA
Brady did this for 20 years, he excelled at saying nothing most of the time.
I listened to Brady's weekly EEI interviews for years. In my opinion, this is the one thing having to do with football where Mac is better than Brady. Better at saying nothing, that is. Even though Brady did not say a whole heck of a lot, he was usually good for a couple of substantive answers in each interview. Mac is almost unlistenable becaus ehe really does say nothing.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
5,063
Imaginationland
I listened to Brady's weekly EEI interviews for years. In my opinion, this is the one thing having to do with football where Mac is better than Brady. Better at saying nothing, that is. Even though Brady did not say a whole heck of a lot, he was usually good for a couple of substantive answers in each interview. Mac is almost unlistenable becaus ehe really does say nothing.
For better or worse, I feel like he'll become more comfortable and more interesting the more he does these.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
5,797
I realize that advanced stats are no longer en vogue on this board when it comes to Mac but his metrics for the playoff game were:

QBR: 59.7 (5th)
PFF: 76.6 (5th)
EPA+CPOE .141 (5th)
EPA: .17 (5th)
Adjusted EPA .190 (5th)
CPOE 4.8 (5th)



Basically, by all advanced metrics, Mac Jones performed 5th best of all QBs this past weekend. His advanced numbers were 4th best all time for a rookie QB, with Dak and Wilson besting him.

BTW Allen appears to have basically broken all the advanced metrics this past weekend.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
8,985
San Francisco
I realize that advanced stats are no longer en vogue on this board when it comes to Mac but his metrics for the playoff game were:

QBR: 59.7 (5th)
PFF: 76.6 (5th)
EPA+CPOE .141 (5th)
EPA: .17 (5th)
Adjusted EPA .190 (5th)
CPOE 4.8 (5th)



Basically, by all advanced metrics, Mac Jones performed 5th best of all QBs this past weekend. His advanced numbers were 4th best all time for a rookie QB, with Dak and Wilson besting him.

BTW Allen appears to have basically broken all the advanced metrics this past weekend.
That seems to make sense. I still have no idea how Jimmy G was the second highest by QBR. That was a real head-scratcher.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/qbr/_/view/weekly

Edit - I mean Jimmy was solid. He still had some real shaking moments at the end that almost cost his team.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I thought QBR gave a lot of credence to leverage and "clutch", so I have no clue why Mac graded out like this. Brady had a meh QBR against the Eagles because they just couldn't convert on third down in the second half and I know their formula really puts a ton of weight on third down conversions, but the Bucs were running the ball on first and second down with the game in hand, so it was as inconsequential as it comes. I don't hate QBR like a lot of people here do, but over one game samples it spits out some strange results.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,288
New York City
I thought QBR gave a lot of credence to leverage and "clutch", so I have no clue why Mac graded out like this. Brady had a meh QBR against the Eagles because they just couldn't convert on third down in the second half and I know their formula really puts a ton of weight on third down conversions, but the Bucs were running the ball on first and second down with the game in hand, so it was as inconsequential as it comes. I don't hate QBR like a lot of people here do, but over one game samples it spits out some strange results.
Mac put up a lot of his numbers when his team was behind by 30.

Converting some third downs and throwing two touchdowns (including one very late in the game) after your team is down 30 is one of the least valuable things a QB can do. Because the game is over, nothing is of value.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Mac put up a lot of his numbers when his team was behind by 30.

Converting some third downs and throwing two touchdowns (including one very late in the game) after your team is down 30 is one of the least valuable things a QB can do. Because the game is over, nothing is of value.
I agree, I'm just puzzled because in my mind that's exactly the kind of performance QBR wouldn't reward.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
5,063
Imaginationland
I'd buy an argument that tries to state that Mac played the best of any losing QB this weekend, but Jimmy G was better than both Mahomes and Burrow? Mac was better than Brady? No, that doesn't remotely pass any smell test.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
8,985
San Francisco
I thought QBR gave a lot of credence to leverage and "clutch", so I have no clue why Mac graded out like this. Brady had a meh QBR against the Eagles because they just couldn't convert on third down in the second half and I know their formula really puts a ton of weight on third down conversions, but the Bucs were running the ball on first and second down with the game in hand, so it was as inconsequential as it comes. I don't hate QBR like a lot of people here do, but over one game samples it spits out some strange results.
That is why I was so shocked that Jimmy G got such a high QBR. I mean he was not great coming down the stretch.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,288
New York City
I'd buy an argument that tries to state that Mac played the best of any losing QB this weekend, but Jimmy G was better than both Mahomes and Burrow? Mac was better than Brady? No, that doesn't remotely pass any smell test.
Jimmy G being better than Mahomes yesterday really is, um, a take.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,288
New York City
Seriously, how is that possible. Mahomes passed for over 400 yards and had 5 TDs. And he rushed for 30 yards. And his team won in an absolute blowout.

Lol. These black box statistics are worthless if these are the results.
 

Bergs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
17,804
Burrow is an interesting guy to cite because his arm is not elite and he’s not a great athlete, either. I think he grades out better than Mac in both areas right now, but of the active QB he is the model you’d look at for Mac’s progression.
Burrow is head and shoulders above Mac as an athlete. Dude was an all-state basketball player, and even with a rebuilt knee, he can break tackles and make plays when he needs to.

What they do have in common is intellect and work ethic, which is why I'm excited to see the next few seasons shake out.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
14,957
Seriously, how is that possible. Mahomes passed for over 400 yards and had 5 TDs. And he rushed for 30 yards. And his team won in an absolute blowout.

Lol. These black box statistics are worthless if these are the results.
This is the fatal flaw with this stat. It’s completely black box and also not transparent. So nobody really knows what it’s measuring. I highly doubt it’s used by any NFL front offices for this reason.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
47,692
I listened to Brady's weekly EEI interviews for years. In my opinion, this is the one thing having to do with football where Mac is better than Brady. Better at saying nothing, that is. Even though Brady did not say a whole heck of a lot, he was usually good for a couple of substantive answers in each interview. Mac is almost unlistenable becaus ehe really does say nothing.
He's a rookie playing for a notoriously tight-lipped coach. I'm sure, assuming he's here for a while, that he'll eventually be more loquacious.
 

Traut

lost his degree
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
12,287
My Desk
He's a rookie playing for a notoriously tight-lipped coach. I'm sure, assuming he's here for a while, that he'll eventually be more loquacious.
Many athletes today are so much more cautious than they were when Brady was coming up. There was a world when Brady could say something on EEI and it just stayed in that universe. Maybe the Herald or Globe would pick it up but even then information wasn’t as accessible as it is today. And there wasn’t a way to mobilize the culture of outrage.

I remember in 2003 I was driving home from work in early August and Brady was on. Whatever host on EEI asked him about dating or what he likes to do at night. This was in the context of him not being known for being out on the town ala Bledsoe. He responded by saying he has a good internet connection and likes to do what boys like to do.

It was just a different world. Guys who tend to put themselves out there are more established like Aaron Rodgers because what does he care.

On every level Mac not saying anything is good business at this point. A credit to him.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
36,703
Melrose, MA
I thought QBR gave a lot of credence to leverage and "clutch", so I have no clue why Mac graded out like this. Brady had a meh QBR against the Eagles because they just couldn't convert on third down in the second half and I know their formula really puts a ton of weight on third down conversions, but the Bucs were running the ball on first and second down with the game in hand, so it was as inconsequential as it comes. I don't hate QBR like a lot of people here do, but over one game samples it spits out some strange results.
Mac converted a whole bunch of 3rds and 4ths. Here are all the Pats 3rd/4th downs, converted ones bolded:
  • 3-14: complete to Henry, 30 yards
  • 3-10: Mac run for 16 yard
  • 3-3: Harris run for 2
  • 3-6: incomplete, DPI, 22 yards
  • 3-20: after 3-15 delay of game, pass to Bolden for 12
  • 3-4: compete to Bolden, 8 yards
  • 3-12: complete to Meyers, 7 yards
  • 4-5: complete to Meyers, 19 yards
  • 3-6: after 3-1 too many men, complete to Bourne, 43 yards
  • 3-6: complete to Meyers, 7 yards
  • 3-3: incomplete
  • 4-3: complete to Bourne, 3 yard TD
  • 3-7: Mac sacked, -4
  • 3-1: Rhamondre run for 2
  • 3-4: complete to Bourne, 2 yards
  • 4-2: complete to Meyers, 3 yards
  • 3-2: Rhamondre run for 5
  • 3-4: incomplete pass
  • 4-4: complete to Bourne, 4 yard TD
Overall, Pats attempted 15 third-down (8 successful) and 4 fourth-down (4 successful) conversions.
4.4, 29, 4/4 2TD
There were 3 rushes (all on 3rd down) and 16 drop backs.

Mac's 3rd down drop backs:
  • 1 16-yard scramble for a first
  • 1 DPI call for a first
  • 1 sack
  • 7 completions in 9 attempts for 109 yards and 4 first downs
Mac's 4th down drop backs:
  • 4 completions in 4 attempts for 29 yards and 4 first downs (2 TDs, which I think are also called first downs in the official stats)
Overall, he dropped back 16 times on 3rd or 4th down. Count the scrambles, penalties, etc, and he conveted 10 of 16 attempts, including 2 for TDs. Just look at the passing line and you get: 11/13, 138 yards, 8 first-downs, 2 TDs. Two of his failed conversions were a 12 yard completion on 3rd and 30 and a 7 yard completion on 3rd and 12.

Anyway, my point is that if QBR was designed to reward 3rd and 4th down conversions, then it was going to have an irrational appreciation for Mac's game yesterday because he converted a shitload of them.
He's a rookie playing for a notoriously tight-lipped coach. I'm sure, assuming he's here for a while, that he'll eventually be more loquacious.
I wasn't really criticizing him. Just noting that: 1) he's clearly a believer in the BB tight lipped approach, 2) His ability to talk a,lot while saying nothing is striking.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Mac converted a whole bunch of 3rds and 4ths. Here are all the 3rd/4th downs, conversions bolded:
  • 3-14: complete to Henry, 30 yards
  • 3-10: Mac run for 16 yard
  • 3-3: Harris run for 2
  • 3-6: incomplete, DPI, 22 yards
  • 3-20: after 3-15 delay of game, pass to Bolden for 12
  • 3-4: compete to Bolden, 8 years
  • 3-12: complete to Meyers, 7 yards
  • 4-5: complete to Meyers, 19 yards
  • 3-6: after 3-1 too many men, complete to Bourne, 43 yards
  • 3-6: complete to Meyers, 7 yards
  • 3-3: incomplete
  • 4-3: complete to Bourne, 3 yard TD
  • 3-7: Mac sacked, -4
  • 3-1: Rhamondre run for 2
  • 3-4: complete to Bourne, 2 yards
  • 4-2: complete to Meyers, 3 yards
  • 3-2: Rhamondre run for 5
  • 3-4: incomplete pass
  • 4-4: complete to Bourne, 4 yard TD
Overall, Pats attempted 15 third-down (8 successful) and 4 fourth-down (4 successful) conversions.
4.4, 29, 4/4 2TD
There were 3 rushes (all on 3rd down) and 16 drop backs.

Mac's 3rd down drop backs:
  • 1 16-yard scramble for a first
  • 1 DPI call for a first
  • 1 sack
  • 7 completions in 9 attempts for 109 yards and 4 first downs
Mac's 4th down drop backs:
  • 4 completions in 4 attempts for 29 yards and 4 first downs (2 TDs, which I think are also called first downs in the official stats)
Overall, he dropped back 16 times on 3rd or 4th down. Count the scrambles, penalties, etc, and he conveted 10 of 16 attempts, including 2 for TDs. Just look at the passing line and you get: 11/13, 138 yards, 8 first-downs, 2 TDs. Two of his failed conversions were a 12 yard completion on 3rd and 30 and a 7 yard completion on 3rd and 12.

Anyway, my point is that if QBR was designed to reward 3rd and 4th down conversions, then it was going to have an irrational appreciation for Mac's game yesterday because he converted a shitload of them.
I wasn't really criticizing him. Just noting that: 1) he's clearly a believer in the BB tight lipped approach, 2) His ability to talk a,lot while saying nothing is striking.
Yes, that was my point, but it's great to see it spelled out like that. That's very likely the reason Mac ended up with a good QBR. I just assumed the "clutch" element of their formula also adjusted for game situation and leverage, but apparently it kinda doesn't.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
36,703
Melrose, MA
Yes, that was my point, but it's great to see it spelled out like that. That's very likely the reason Mac ended up with a good QBR. I just assumed the "clutch" element of their formula also adjusted for game situation and leverage, but apparently it kinda doesn't.
Right, I looked into it because of your comment. It really is kind of weird. Ordinarily, converting 10/16 thirds and fourths including 2 TD passes would suggest that the QB had a good game. Knowing only that fact "lost by 30 points" would not have been my guess.

Bedard was quite high on Jones, quite low on the rest of the team.

https://www.bostonsportsjournal.com/2022/01/17/bedards-breakdown-offense-mac-jones-showed-promise-vs-bills-too-bad-few-others-did
Mac Jones, Hunter Henry and Kendrick Bourne are mentally tough gamers who can be counted on in big spots on the road and the cold. Everyone else — including Shaq Mason and Trent Brown — should be in question and looked at going forward.

OFFENSE
Quarterback (4 out of 5)

Had a hard time grading Jones down on the first interception, but the second wasn't a great decision even if it was tipped at the line because Herron missed his cut block. The linebacker read the route and Jones should have got to Meyers on the outside. ... Overall, had Jones for 6 plus plays and 2 minus plays in the first half. In the second, it was 5/2. ... Jones did not look like a rookie in this game. He was really ready to go. ... The delay of game was his fault, but I only had him for one questionable decision — on the second interception. He did take one sack that he needed to throw away. ... I was extremely encouraged by Jones in this game. It was my highest-rated game for him and he showed me a lot. A lot to build on there. Now he needs to become the Alpha and bring the other guys with him.
I don't post that to claim Bedard as the be all and end all, but his take braoadly fits with my own impression.

During the post-bye regular season fade, it felt to me like the whole team was having problems, and Mac was right in the mix. He was either struggling with the rest of the team or struggling even worse and pulling the offense down.

In this playoff game, it often felt the opposite - Mac came to play but the rest of the offense let him down. I would not say the same about any of the other losses except maybe Week 1 vs Miami with the Harris fumble, which was more a case of one player screwing up one play.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
This guy's videos are fantastic and educational, and here he makes the case that the first pick was a bit of Mac's fault since he didn't do a proper pump fake.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qzk1JLaosc&ab_channel=TheQBSchool


I recommend the rest of this channel highly.
I love JT's content and his perspective on this throw makes a ton of sense. Just goes to show how hard it is to evaluate QB play and the crazy amount of nuance there is to playing the position.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
Yeah that was fascinating. The margin in the NFL is so small. If Hyde delays like a half second, that’s a TD. By the way, Agholor should get some love on that play because he absolutely roasted the corner.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Yeah that was fascinating. The margin in the NFL is so small. If Hyde delays like a half second, that’s a TD. By the way, Agholor should get some love on that play because he absolutely roasted the corner.
Which is why it bothered me that guys like Evan Lazar were trashing Agholor's effort on this play, claiming he should've gone back to fight for the ball. He more than did his job.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
16,416
Somewhere
Which is why it bothered me that guys like Evan Lazar were trashing Agholor's effort on this play, claiming he should've gone back to fight for the ball. He more than did his job.
I wonder if part of his disappointing season has to do with Mac’s weakness (to date) in throwing deep balls?
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I wonder if part of his disappointing season has to do with Mac’s weakness (to date) in throwing deep balls?
I think he throws a really nice deep ball down the sidelines against single coverage. That was consistently his best pass all season, in my view. He can hit a fade or a wheel route with his eyes closed. Thing is when there's a safety involved you need to put a little more on the ball and not just float it so the receiver can track it.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
31,237
The sideline areas in the game Saturday night seemed especially icy, so I wonder if Agholor ran his pattern a little further into the field than normal as an adjustment, giving Hyde a shorter distance to travel to the ball.

I think he throws a really nice deep ball down the sidelines against single coverage. That was consistently his best pass all season, in my view.
Agree that Mac seemed to do well with deep sideline throws this season.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,095
Maine
Yea Jimmy being the 2nd best this weekend is crazy.

I will say that watching Jimmy throw and Mac throw was striking. Probably unfair as 9ers were playing in great conditions and Mac was in Buffalo. And when compared to Allen in the same conditions his arm (IMHO) didnt look as bad in comparison. (Dont get me wrong....performance was a huge difference but Arm Strength comparison didnt seem THAT bad....or at least that unexpected. IE I knew Allen would look alot better so when he did.....it was expected. When I saw Jimmy G compared to Mac.....I was like woah.)

All that said I hope they have a throwing guru working with him starting today.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Yea Jimmy being the 2nd best this weekend is crazy.

I will say that watching Jimmy throw and Mac throw was striking. Probably unfair as 9ers were playing in great conditions and Mac was in Buffalo. And when compared to Allen in the same conditions his arm (IMHO) didnt look as bad in comparison. (Dont get me wrong....performance was a huge difference but Arm Strength comparison didnt seem THAT bad....or at least that unexpected. IE I knew Allen would look alot better so when he did.....it was expected. When I saw Jimmy G compared to Mac.....I was like woah.)

All that said I hope they have a throwing guru working with him starting today.
Jimmy has the quickest and smoothest release in football, but the arm is meh, I don't think it's significantly better than Mac's.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
26,719
I'd have to see more context, but I think the overall idea behind what Cowherd said isn't really wrong, in the sense of Bill will trade anybody once he thinks the value coming back is worth more than them and he won't treat Mac any differently.
It has honestly come up on this board.

If Mac doesn't improve over the next year or two, Bill might trade him before his 2nd deal. I actually think it's not that unreasonable. Bill has been great at never overpaying, and the worst overpays in the league in terms of hurting your ability to construct a title team are usually middle of the pack QBs. If Mac continues to be a middle of the pack QB (especially since it likely means he doesn't improve his ability to throw with velocity) I wouldn't be surprised for Bill to shop him. You don't want to be paying 30M a year for a Jimmy G/Chad Pennington type long term, it's why SF went out and got a rookie then shopped Jimmy. Now his health meant they got no bites, but I wouldn't be shocked if Bill considered the same somewhere a year or 2 down the line.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I'd have to see more context, but I think the overall idea behind what Cowherd said isn't really wrong, in the sense of Bill will trade anybody once he thinks the value coming back is worth more than them and he won't treat Mac any differently.
It has honestly come up on this board.

If Mac doesn't improve over the next year or two, Bill might trade him before his 2nd deal. I actually think it's not that unreasonable. Bill has been great at never overpaying, and the worst overpays in the league in terms of hurting your ability to construct a title team are usually middle of the pack QBs. If Mac continues to be a middle of the pack QB (especially since it likely means he doesn't improve his ability to throw with velocity) I wouldn't be surprised for Bill to shop him. You don't want to be paying 30M a year for a Jimmy G/Chad Pennington type long term, it's why SF went out and got a rookie then shopped Jimmy. Now his health meant they got no bites, but I wouldn't be shocked if Bill considered the same somewhere a year or 2 down the line.
I think Cowherd's argument is dumb because it's predicated on an assumption I've seen everywhere (and also been guilty of on occasion), which is that with the amount of young athletic QBs in the AFC the only way you can compete is by finding yourself one of those guys, and considering Mac doesn't fit that profile, you'd be bringing a pea shooter to a gun fight.

That's wrong because while Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Jackson, Herbert and Watson are all very good to great players, the specific attributes that make them great don't really matter. Bill wouldn't ever think of trading away a 27 year old Drew Brees because he saw Josh Allen look like a mix between prime John Elway and prime Cam Newton. If you're good, you're good, we don't know if Mac will ever reach the heights of those guys, but to discard that as a possibility completely based on physical tools is not the way to go.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
26,719
I think Cowherd's argument is dumb because it's predicated on an assumption I've seen everywhere (and also been guilty of on occasion), which is that with the amount of young athletic QBs in the AFC the only way you can compete is by finding yourself one of those guys, and considering Mac doesn't fit that profile, you'd be bringing a pea shooter to a gun fight.

That's wrong because while Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Jackson, Herbert and Watson are all very good to great players, the specific attributes that make them great don't really matter. Bill wouldn't ever think of trading away a 27 year old Drew Brees because he saw Josh Allen look like a mix between prime John Elway and prime Cam Newton. If you're good, you're good, we don't know if Mac will ever reach the heights of those guys, but to discard that as a possibility completely based on physical tools is not the way to go.
Yeah, I can see that. I also will say,.... sure if you're good you're good. On the other hand it's a lot easier to be good against any defense if you have great tools. A guy like Mac needs a lot more to go right than a guy like Allen. There is a reason most of the top QBs in the league have great physical tools, they let you make mistakes and get away with it, and they let you make plays even if you O-line struggles, and every QB makes mistakes, and every O-line has tough matchup games.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
31,237
If BB conveys to the league that he's ready to move on and trade Mac in coming seasons, I doubt another team is excited about offering much in return. The mindset around the league trends towards BB gets more out of guys than their talent level (e.g., Andrews as a recent FA).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
14,957
Lots of QB’s with great tools never develop, so it’s not clear that a QB with great athletic skills has an easier time being elite than a QB like Mac Jones. It’s really hard to be an upper tier QB in the NFL.

I don’t think Belichick is conveying anything. It’s just Cowherd throwing shit to generate a story line after a weekend of non-competitive games.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Yeah, I can see that. I also will say,.... sure if you're good you're good. On the other hand it's a lot easier to be good against any defense if you have great tools. A guy like Mac needs a lot more to go right than a guy like Allen. There is a reason most of the top QBs in the league have great physical tools, they let you make mistakes and get away with it, and they let you make plays even if you O-line struggles, and every QB makes mistakes, and every O-line has tough matchup games.
Oh, absolutely. Josh Allen has a lot more on his toolbelt and a much higher margin of error to become a great quarterback. But they liked and drafted Mac for a reason, I'm sure they didn't grab a guy at 15 who they felt could never develop into a top tier player at his position. Whatever aptitude he has needs to be further developed and the mental side will need to be on point, but to give up on a guy at this point because you realize he'll never be as gifted as his peers is stupid. Had Bill never seen Allen play before? If he specifically wanted that type of player he would've traded up for Fields.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
Yeah, I can see that. I also will say,.... sure if you're good you're good. On the other hand it's a lot easier to be good against any defense if you have great tools. A guy like Mac needs a lot more to go right than a guy like Allen. There is a reason most of the top QBs in the league have great physical tools, they let you make mistakes and get away with it, and they let you make plays even if you O-line struggles, and every QB makes mistakes, and every O-line has tough matchup games.
For sure if you have more tools, it not only gives you a higher ceiling, but it allows you to make plays when nothing is really there. But I want to ask about the "a lot more has to go right" comment.

One "tool" a QB has at his disposal is his ability to recognize what's happening, both pre-snap and post-snap. And those things may make it look like "more is going right".

For example, the D lines up a certain way, preparing to blitz. QB1 doesn't recognize it and doesn't slide the protection to the proper side. Result? He gets sacked or pressured into a bad throw. QB2 does recognize it and slides the protection over. Result? The blitz is picked up, he has time to throw, and completes a pass.

Or another example, post-snap. He gets the ball and immediately makes the read. QB1 makes the wrong read and throws into coverage. Result? Incomplete or interception and we go, oh man that guy wasn't even open. QB2 makes the right read and throws to the open guy he knew would be available as soon as he saw the LB take his first step. Result? Easy completion, and we go, oh man that was an easy throw to a wide open receiver.

In both cases we can look at QB1 and say things weren't "going right". Too much pressure. Tight coverage. But we might say QB2 had everything go right - the pressure was picked up, or he found a wide open guy.

But in both cases, the "tool" the QB used wasn't a rocket arm or quick feet. It was a sharp mind that allowed him to make the right play and it LOOKED like "a lot more was going right" for him than for QB1.

I think Mac has that QB2 ability - to make it look like things are going right when in reality, he's making good protection calls, making good reads, making accurate throws.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
7,406
around the way
Lots of QB’s with great tools never develop, so it’s not clear that a QB with great athletic skills has an easier time being elite than a QB like Mac Jones. It’s really hard to be an upper tier QB in the NFL.

I don’t think Belichick is conveying anything. It’s just Cowherd throwing shit to generate a story line after a weekend of non-competitive games.
The draft is littered with guys who can throw gas and have no idea where it's going sometimes, or who throw it often to the other team because they don't know how to read a defense.

Sure, if someone wants to make the point that maybe Mac doesn’t get a starter's second contract if he's still the 10-15th best QB in 4 years, that's fine. It's also unlikely that a guy who's already the 10-15th QB as a rookie doesn't improve.
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
26,719
For sure if you have more tools, it not only gives you a higher ceiling, but it allows you to make plays when nothing is really there. But I want to ask about the "a lot more has to go right" comment.

One "tool" a QB has at his disposal is his ability to recognize what's happening, both pre-snap and post-snap. And those things may make it look like "more is going right".

For example, the D lines up a certain way, preparing to blitz. QB1 doesn't recognize it and doesn't slide the protection to the proper side. Result? He gets sacked or pressured into a bad throw. QB2 does recognize it and slides the protection over. Result? The blitz is picked up, he has time to throw, and completes a pass.

Or another example, post-snap. He gets the ball and immediately makes the read. QB1 makes the wrong read and throws into coverage. Result? Incomplete or interception and we go, oh man that guy wasn't even open. QB2 makes the right read and throws to the open guy he knew would be available as soon as he saw the LB take his first step. Result? Easy completion, and we go, oh man that was an easy throw to a wide open receiver.

In both cases we can look at QB1 and say things weren't "going right". Too much pressure. Tight coverage. But we might say QB2 had everything go right - the pressure was picked up, or he found a wide open guy.

But in both cases, the "tool" the QB used wasn't a rocket arm or quick feet. It was a sharp mind that allowed him to make the right play and it LOOKED like "a lot more was going right" for him than for QB1.

I think Mac has that QB2 ability - to make it look like things are going right when in reality, he's making good protection calls, making good reads, making accurate throws.
A lot more needs to go right in that, a QB with a subpar arm and not great legs needs:
1. To make the right read pre-snap on pressure.
2. Have the line not get beat immediately.
3. Have a guy get open
4. See and make the throw immediately.
5. Have the coverage/route be one that allows the type of throws he can make.

A guy with elite tools can have 1 or more of those go wrong a lot more without it mattering. He can screw up a read on pressure and just escape with great running ability. He can identify late and just thread a window with his cannon arm, he can make throws that other guys can't.

As an example, the last 2 weeks we've talked about plays where Mac threw picks in part because he didn't have elite tools.
Against Miami he was late/misread a coverage, and threw a pick 6. A player with a canon like Herbert or Allen can have that same mis-read, but it isn't a pick 6, and might even be a good gaining completion because he can thread that gap.
Against BUF, he made a good read, a good (not great) throw, and he got picked by a safety who ran a mile to get there. Now, could he have made a PERFECT throw and still got the TD... yep. On the other hand a QB with a canon just makes the same throw, but he puts it deeper or on a flatter line and the safety never had a chance.

Mac has great touch, and he has a lot of mental tools, that's why he's been a solid NFL QB, the point is, guys who don't have the physical tools have to execute mentally (and touch) far more consistently at a high level than a QB with a great arm and speed. And those guys can offset things that aren't their fault (bad blocking, limited separation, tight windows) in ways a guy without the physical tools can't.

There is a reason there are a lot more QBs with strong arms than not in the league, and there is a reason teams have a lot of success with QBs who can run.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
A lot more needs to go right in that, a QB with a subpar arm and not great legs needs:
1. To make the right read pre-snap on pressure.
2. Have the line not get beat immediately.
3. Have a guy get open
4. See and make the throw immediately.
5. Have the coverage/route be one that allows the type of throws he can make.

A guy with elite tools can have 1 or more of those go wrong a lot more without it mattering. He can screw up a read on pressure and just escape with great running ability. He can identify late and just thread a window with his cannon arm, he can make throws that other guys can't.

As an example, the last 2 weeks we've talked about plays where Mac threw picks in part because he didn't have elite tools.
Against Miami he was late/misread a coverage, and threw a pick 6. A player with a canon like Herbert or Allen can have that same mis-read, but it isn't a pick 6, and might even be a good gaining completion because he can thread that gap.
Against BUF, he made a good read, a good (not great) throw, and he got picked by a safety who ran a mile to get there. Now, could he have made a PERFECT throw and still got the TD... yep. On the other hand a QB with a canon just makes the same throw, but he puts it deeper or on a flatter line and the safety never had a chance.

Mac has great touch, and he has a lot of mental tools, that's why he's been a solid NFL QB, the point is, guys who don't have the physical tools have to execute mentally (and touch) far more consistently at a high level than a QB with a great arm and speed. And those guys can offset things that aren't their fault (bad blocking, limited separation, tight windows) in ways a guy without the physical tools can't.

There is a reason there are a lot more QBs with strong arms than not in the league, and there is a reason teams have a lot of success with QBs who can run.
Yep, I agree. I just think that Mac uses these other tools very well and that often his use of the tools makes it look like more is "going right" when in reality, HE's the one kind of making it "go right".
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
26,678
Saskatoon Canada
The draft is littered with guys who can throw gas and have no idea where it's going sometimes, or who throw it often to the other team because they don't know how to read a defense.

Sure, if someone wants to make the point that maybe Max doesn’t get a starter's second contract if he's still the 10-15th best QB in 4 years, that's fine. It's also unlikely that a guy who's already the 10-15th QB as a rookie doesn't improve.
Thanks for this. I was hoping they could trade him for a third-round pick after reading some of the other stuff.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
5,797
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

The Jets, Broncos, Panthers.. et al have been dying for a competent QB from the draft for many years and wasted so much draft capital on busts...yet here, we have a top 15 QB (and one of the top 5 rookie seasons ever) and people are legitimately talking about trading him now that he's reached his ceiling. Under no circumstances, unless Aaron Rodgers or Patrick Mahomes, is walking through that door is Mac going anywhere on his rookie deal. If by the end of his rookie deal if Mac is still just a top 15 QB they will consider moving on (like Baker).

Mac took on so much this season - and playing QB for the pats is no simple matter. I'm extremely excited to see Mac in season 2 - if he doesn't progress, I'll gladly eat my humble pie - but I have very little doubt he will have significant improvement next season.
 

MillarTime

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
1,318
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

The Jets, Broncos, Panthers.. et al have been dying for a competent QB from the draft for many years and wasted so much draft capital on busts...yet here, we have a top 15 QB (and one of the top 5 rookie seasons ever) and people are legitimately talking about trading him now that he's reached his ceiling. Under no circumstances, unless Aaron Rodgers or Patrick Mahomes, is walking through that door is Mac going anywhere on his rookie deal. If by the end of his rookie deal if Mac is still just a top 15 QB they will consider moving on (like Baker).

Mac took on so much this season - and playing QB for the pats is no simple matter. I'm extremely excited to see Mac in season 2 - if he doesn't progress, I'll gladly eat my humble pie - but I have very little doubt he will have significant improvement next season.
Thank you.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
6,683
Palo Alto
A lot more needs to go right in that, a QB with a subpar arm and not great legs needs:
1. To make the right read pre-snap on pressure.
2. Have the line not get beat immediately.
3. Have a guy get open
4. See and make the throw immediately.
5. Have the coverage/route be one that allows the type of throws he can make.

A guy with elite tools can have 1 or more of those go wrong a lot more without it mattering. He can screw up a read on pressure and just escape with great running ability. He can identify late and just thread a window with his cannon arm, he can make throws that other guys can't.

As an example, the last 2 weeks we've talked about plays where Mac threw picks in part because he didn't have elite tools.
Against Miami he was late/misread a coverage, and threw a pick 6. A player with a canon like Herbert or Allen can have that same mis-read, but it isn't a pick 6, and might even be a good gaining completion because he can thread that gap.
Against BUF, he made a good read, a good (not great) throw, and he got picked by a safety who ran a mile to get there. Now, could he have made a PERFECT throw and still got the TD... yep. On the other hand a QB with a canon just makes the same throw, but he puts it deeper or on a flatter line and the safety never had a chance.

Mac has great touch, and he has a lot of mental tools, that's why he's been a solid NFL QB, the point is, guys who don't have the physical tools have to execute mentally (and touch) far more consistently at a high level than a QB with a great arm and speed. And those guys can offset things that aren't their fault (bad blocking, limited separation, tight windows) in ways a guy without the physical tools can't.

There is a reason there are a lot more QBs with strong arms than not in the league, and there is a reason teams have a lot of success with QBs who can run.
There are lots of successful examples now, but let's not forget that mobility can cap someone's ceiling as well, to the extent that guys cover up bad habits or skill deficits by resorting to scrambling when they screw something up. Tom Brady became the type of quarterback he is in part (in my opinion) because he could not bail the pocket and run when things didn't go right.