The Michael McCorkle "Mac" Jones Thread

[Anthologos]

Not an expert, but he frequently throws the ball with most of his weight supported on his back foot. Sometimes, he is actively moving backward when he releases the ball. That's not an good way to get high velocity. This is sometimes a consequence of the poor blocking by the offensive line, sometimes a result of his failure to move up in the pocket, sometimes due to his skittishness.

this trait has been often lamented this year by Green Bay watchers of Rodgers…who has sometimes done this without issue in his career because he has always had an arm like a Panzerfaust. But it seems to be affecting him this year, with protection issues and lack of experienced receivers, resulting in unprecedentedly poor accuracy and power for him.

(No comparison otherwise intended between exhibit A and exhibit B. I’ve just been reading a lot of Green Bay reporting)

 

[Pandemonium67]

Saying that Mac stinks now because BB hired boneheads to replace JMcD and changed the offense is ignoring the fact that Mac pretty much stunk at the end of last year too.

I haven't given up on him, but I'm much less optimistic now than I was a year ago.

 

[Over Guapo Grande]

Is it too much of a stretch to make the comparison to Bobby Dalbec?

Rookie comes in and does better than expected. At the end of the first year, teams start to adapt/adjust to him.
There are hopes going into the second year that the player can take those adjustments, and learn from them...
Next year reveal the same difficulties that the end of the previous year exposed.

 

[SMU_Sox]

1) Sony averaged 100+ yards a game in the postseason and had 6 TDs. You cannot point to a hypothetical and say "Oh anyone could have done that." No. They took him, he performed like that, they won the SB. Lamar would never have seen the field. That was a championship-level pick. Without Sony they do not win the Super Bowl.

2) I'm obviously not privy to their evaluations but I would have been shocked if Fields WASN'T on their radar. He'd have to be, because it was very possible that Mac got picked before Fields did.

Quick note on 2 - the rumor was they would have taken AVT at 16 had he been there or someone else and taken Davis Mills in round 2 had they been unable to select Mac at 15. AVT was scooped up right before they picked. We'll never know but I think Fields was too much of an issue for them as a pocket passer and needed too much development for them to want him. I was a big Fields guy. I underestimated the amount of work he needed//thought he would develop quicker.

I know this is long but I think the Sony question is an interesting thought exercise.

We will probably never agree on 1. That's how hypotheticals works though: I can say with a lot of confidence that Sony was the product of the offensive line and blocking and wasn't that spectacular as an RB. But that's only 1 part of the hypothetical - how replaceable he is. The other part is how good the rest of the team was and how important his individual contribution was. In your argument he's both irreplaceable and his contribution is so significant that they can't win without him.

We have 2 main grades for offensive line play from Football Outsiders. Football Outsiders has adjusted line yards and open field yards:

Unlike other FO stats this one is not a black box:


Open field yards:



How you interpret these together:


The Patriots had the 3rd highest adjusted line yards and 25th highest open field yards indicating they had a very good offensive line and bad running backs:



Individually he was 24th/47 in DYAR for RBs with over 100 carries and 26th/47 for DVOA. That's not horrible by any measure but it doesn't indicate he was anything other than an average back and again RB DVOA is also tied to the offensive line which we know is very good.

Let's look at pro football focus:

4th best in run blocking by grade. So both film graders and the analytics agree the Patriots had a top 4 run blocking OL.
I am not crazy about PFF's individual player grades but of the 17 RBs with over 200 rushing attempts he graded out at 11th/17. Of those 17 he was 10th in yards/attempt with 4.5. He was tied for 15th/17 for yards after contact with 2.65. He was 13th on the list for breakaway percent (% of carries that go for 15+ yards), at 24.1%. I've defined elusiveness elsewhere but he was 14th in elusiveness too for the season with a 30.4 rating. He was useless as a receiving option only having 8 total receptions for the year. The median backs had 50 and 43. He was always good in pass pro - I don't want to discredit that. Excellent even in pass pro. That was his best trait...
So when you look at him vs other bell-cowish backs he didn't excel in playing through contact, breaking off big runs, or being elusive. Meanwhile he clearly played behind an elite run blocking line. And while being a check-down option isn't a be-all and end-all he was a detriment to the team as a check-down option and receiving option and it's possible a replacement player would have given them more production there even if it is just a marginal upgrade.
Ok... but what about the playoffs? Let me say that none of the RBs graded out very well in the playoffs which makes some sense because you're talking about the best teams and some of the best defenses. We're also talking about a tiny 3 game sample size. Losing teams will often not have impressive running stats. So these come with a grain of salt.
Of the 15 backs with 10 or more carries in the playoffs that year he was graded 5th highest. His Y/A of 4.7 were 3rd best. His yards after contact improved from 2.65 to 2.90, 4th best. His elusiveness went up from a 30.4 to a 32.2, 7th best. His breakaway went from 24.1% to 25.3%, 6th best. None of these rates are impressive compared to the regular season rankings but he at least was better.
The Patriots OL graded out as the best run blocking team in the post-season at 78.4 which greatly helped.

How about the quality of opponent defense? PFF doesn't adjust anything vs opponent defense. FO does. The Chargers were 28th against the run by DVOA, the Chiefs 18th, and the Rams 3rd. PFF had the Rams run defense 15th, Chiefs 30th, and Chargers 26th. We get some conflicting data here although it would appear the Chiefs are somewhere near average to below average, the Chargers were bad, and the Rams were average to very good (huge range). PFF can't adjust vs opponents so it's possible the Rams, for example, played a really tough slate of opponents with good run games. Altogether though the Chiefs and the Chargers weren't good run defenses and most likely below averageish for the Chiefs and bad for the Chargers.

3 of Sony's TDs came against the Chargers and 4/5 Patriots TDs came on run plays on a day they passed for close to 350 yards. If you're telling me they needed Sony to win that game I'm really skeptical given they were winning 38-7 at one point and their offensive line completely dominated the Chargers in run blocking and pass pro. Vs the Chiefs he had 2 TD and over 100 yards but only 3.9 yards per carry and a long run of 11 yards. Much less effective. They also ran for 4/5 TDs on a day Brady once again threw for nearly 350 yards. I'm skeptical they couldn't have thrown for those TDs or a different RB couldn't have accomplished what he did. Now vs the Rams he had 18 runs for 94 yards, 5.2 yards a carry, a long of 26 and a TD. To me this was his best game vs a solid to very good opponent.

So how important was his contribution and how replaceable was he?

Running backs are one of the more dependent positions in the NFL. Running backs are greatly dependent on their lines minus a handful of truly special talents like Nick Chubb or Rhamondre Stevenson. Sony Michel was not that guy. It's hard for me to see how a below average to mediocre running back who had 2 good games in the playoffs was so crucial for them that they don't win the SB without him. Maybe they beat the Chargers 35-28 instead? The Chargers were a shit run defense. Maybe another RB produces well vs the Rams? He didn't do anything that impressive vs the Chiefs. So saying they don't win without 1/22 starters seems rich to me especially given we're talking about one of the least important positions on the field and most replaceable. The Patriots defense held the Rams to 3 points and the Chargers to 7 before they gave up a bunch in garbage time. And again he averaged 3.9 yards a carry vs the Chiefs which isn't anything special. He had a good playoffs. I won't take that away from him. But a lot of guys had a remarkable playoffs. It is unlikely to me that they couldn't have replaced him and his production with a different running back, a running back by committee or passing more vs the Chiefs.

Sony, an average to below average RB who had 1 to maybe 2 good games in the playoffs and was not a factor at all as a passing back, was a small but meaningful part of their championship run at a position that is the easiest or one of the easiest to replace. The offensive line, the passing game, and the defense also had good games at points and individual players on those units also had some spectacular games.

While it is true you can't say "anyone could have replaced him" you can say it is more likely than not that an average quality back could have replaced his production behind their excellent offensive line. They took him, he performed, and they won the super bowl is unfortunately, to me anyway, bordering on post hoc ergo propter hoc and a logical fallacy. They signed and drafted a lot of other guys who contributed to their SB run. Is everyone now irreplaceable? If your answer is yes then we just will have to agree to disagree on how we look at things. There is nothing championship caliber about picking Sony Michel. He was a below average running back who had, again, 1-2 good games in the playoffs. He never made a pro bowl. He was replaced by Damien Harris. He was shipped out of town for 2 day 3 picks. You don't know and I don't know if they win or don't win without him - I won't be able to prove that nor will you be able to be able to prove they couldn't have won without picking him. Maybe the Browns take Sony Michel instead of Chubb and Chubb falls to them? Maybe they trade for a veteran. Maybe they find a UDFA, give him the opportunity, and he turns into an average guy. It's impossible to know what they would have done or what could have happened. I can only point to his pedestrian stats, other factors like a dominant offensive line, and conclude that I think you're probably overvaluing his contribution and that he was likely replaceable even though he had an above average playoffs (I think - it's hard to untangle how good the line was vs Sony but let's give him the benefit of the doubt). It's also unclear how much he actually helped them win vs all other 21 starters. Personally I think the OL, defense, Edelman, and Gronk were more valuable. And that TB12 guy. If you argued they don't win the SB without Gronk, TB12, Edelman, etc, I have no qualms with it. Those are very good players and unlike Sony it would have been extremely difficult to replace their production in a hypothetical. They also play much more valuable positions that are less dependent on other factors like an OL. WRs are somewhat QB dependent but good/great receivers still produce with them (See TO, A-Rob as two examples). But you're telling me they don't win it without a mediocre RB and that's just infinitely harder for me to buy.

There is an element to hypotheticals that is probably frustrating which is it's a lot of speculating on unknowns. I'm comfortable with this particular one but it's ultimately a thought exercise and YMMV. It's unlikely that you or I are going to change each others minds but I at least want you to know where I am coming from.

 

[ponch73]

He's panicking because the line sucks and gives him no time or space to throw on most plays.

I'd strongly recommending watching Lazar's breakdown of the game film. Mac is also panicking because he is locking onto receivers and not seeing the whole field.

https://www.patriots.com/news/after-further-review-breaking-down-patriots-offense-mac-jones-vs-colts

 

[StupendousMan]

Thanks very much, SMU_Sox! That was a great explanation of how one might judge Sony Michel's contributions!

And for those who were wondering about the "AVT" taken at number 14 in the draft, just ahead of Mac Jones, it stands for "Alijah Vera-Tucker", an offensive lineman from USC, taken by the Jets (and still playing for the Jets now).

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/V/VeraAl00.htm

 

[cornwalls@6]

Was O'Brien (not that he would have fixed everything, but ..) ever really in the mix to come aboard, or was the idea of getting Patricia and Judge on the cheap just too enticing to ignore?

The speculation I’ve seen about not pursuing O’Brien has been two-fold:
a.) BB didn’t want to poach him from Saban’s staff. They were both seen discussing their mutual disapproval of that in the HBO doc a couple of years ago, particularly for what, essentially, would be a lateral move, despite moving from CFB back to the NFL.

b.) BB didn’t want a short term hire, and OB is very likely going to get another head coaching opportunity after this year, either in the NFL, or with a power 5 CFB program. Therefore BB wanted to develop a, hopefully, more long term term solution for OC. Certainly fair to question the wisdom of trying to do that with a young , developing QB, and two guys with minimal offensive coaching experience.

 

[Van Everyman]

Quick note on 2 - the rumor was they would have taken AVT at 16 had he been there or someone else and taken Davis Mills in round 2 had they been unable to select Mac at 15. AVT was scooped up right before they picked. We'll never know but I think Fields was too much of an issue for them as a pocket passer and needed too much development for them to want him. I was a big Fields guy. I underestimated the amount of work he needed//thought he would develop quicker.

I know this is long but I think the Sony question is an interesting thought exercise.

We will probably never agree on 1. That's how hypotheticals works though: I can say with a lot of confidence that Sony was the product of the offensive line and blocking and wasn't that spectacular as an RB. But that's only 1 part of the hypothetical - how replaceable he is. The other part is how good the rest of the team was and how important his individual contribution was. In your argument he's both irreplaceable and his contribution is so significant that they can't win without him.

We have 2 main grades for offensive line play from Football Outsiders. Football Outsiders has adjusted line yards and open field yards:

Unlike other FO stats this one is not a black box:
View attachment 57324

Open field yards:

View attachment 57325

How you interpret these together:
View attachment 57323

The Patriots had the 3rd highest adjusted line yards and 25th highest open field yards indicating they had a very good offensive line and bad running backs:

View attachment 57326

Individually he was 24th/47 in DYAR for RBs with over 100 carries and 26th/47 for DVOA. That's not horrible by any measure but it doesn't indicate he was anything other than an average back and again RB DVOA is also tied to the offensive line which we know is very good.

Let's look at pro football focus:
View attachment 57327
4th best in run blocking by grade. So both film graders and the analytics agree the Patriots had a top 4 run blocking OL.
I am not crazy about PFF's individual player grades but of the 17 RBs with over 200 rushing attempts he graded out at 11th/17. Of those 17 he was 10th in yards/attempt with 4.5. He was tied for 15th/17 for yards after contact with 2.65. He was 13th on the list for breakaway percent (% of carries that go for 15+ yards), at 24.1%. I've defined elusiveness elsewhere but he was 14th in elusiveness too for the season with a 30.4 rating. He was useless as a receiving option only having 8 total receptions for the year. The median backs had 50 and 43. He was always good in pass pro - I don't want to discredit that. Excellent even in pass pro. That was his best trait...
So when you look at him vs other bell-cowish backs he didn't excel in playing through contact, breaking off big runs, or being elusive. Meanwhile he clearly played behind an elite run blocking line. And while being a check-down option isn't a be-all and end-all he was a detriment to the team as a check-down option and receiving option and it's possible a replacement player would have given them more production there even if it is just a marginal upgrade.
Ok... but what about the playoffs? Let me say that none of the RBs graded out very well in the playoffs which makes some sense because you're talking about the best teams and some of the best defenses. We're also talking about a tiny 3 game sample size. Losing teams will often not have impressive running stats. So these come with a grain of salt.
Of the 15 backs with 10 or more carries in the playoffs that year he was graded 5th highest. His Y/A of 4.7 were 3rd best. His yards after contact improved from 2.65 to 2.90, 4th best. His elusiveness went up from a 30.4 to a 32.2, 7th best. His breakaway went from 24.1% to 25.3%, 6th best. None of these rates are impressive compared to the regular season rankings but he at least was better.
The Patriots OL graded out as the best run blocking team in the post-season at 78.4 which greatly helped.

How about the quality of opponent defense? PFF doesn't adjust anything vs opponent defense. FO does. The Chargers were 28th against the run by DVOA, the Chiefs 18th, and the Rams 3rd. PFF had the Rams run defense 15th, Chiefs 30th, and Chargers 26th. We get some conflicting data here although it would appear the Chiefs are somewhere near average to below average, the Chargers were bad, and the Rams were average to very good (huge range). PFF can't adjust vs opponents so it's possible the Rams, for example, played a really tough slate of opponents with good run games. Altogether though the Chiefs and the Chargers weren't good run defenses and most likely below averageish for the Chiefs and bad for the Chargers.

3 of Sony's TDs came against the Chargers and 4/5 Patriots TDs came on run plays on a day they passed for close to 350 yards. If you're telling me they needed Sony to win that game I'm really skeptical given they were winning 38-7 at one point and their offensive line completely dominated the Chargers in run blocking and pass pro. Vs the Chiefs he had 2 TD and over 100 yards but only 3.9 yards per carry and a long run of 11 yards. Much less effective. They also ran for 4/5 TDs on a day Brady once again threw for nearly 350 yards. I'm skeptical they couldn't have thrown for those TDs or a different RB couldn't have accomplished what he did. Now vs the Rams he had 18 runs for 94 yards, 5.2 yards a carry, a long of 26 and a TD. To me this was his best game vs a solid to very good opponent.

So how important was his contribution and how replaceable was he?

Running backs are one of the more dependent positions in the NFL. Running backs are greatly dependent on their lines minus a handful of truly special talents like Nick Chubb or Rhamondre Stevenson. Sony Michel was not that guy. It's hard for me to see how a below average to mediocre running back who had 2 good games in the playoffs was so crucial for them that they don't win the SB without him. Maybe they beat the Chargers 35-28 instead? The Chargers were a shit run defense. Maybe another RB produces well vs the Rams? He didn't do anything that impressive vs the Chiefs. So saying they don't win without 1/22 starters seems rich to me especially given we're talking about one of the least important positions on the field and most replaceable. The Patriots defense held the Rams to 3 points and the Chargers to 7 before they gave up a bunch in garbage time. And again he averaged 3.9 yards a carry vs the Chiefs which isn't anything special. He had a good playoffs. I won't take that away from him. But a lot of guys had a remarkable playoffs. It is unlikely to me that they couldn't have replaced him and his production with a different running back, a running back by committee or passing more vs the Chiefs.

Sony, an average to below average RB who had 1 to maybe 2 good games in the playoffs and was not a factor at all as a passing back, was a small but meaningful part of their championship run at a position that is the easiest or one of the easiest to replace. The offensive line, the passing game, and the defense also had good games at points and individual players on those units also had some spectacular games.

While it is true you can't say "anyone could have replaced him" you can say it is more likely than not that an average quality back could have replaced his production behind their excellent offensive line. They took him, he performed, and they won the super bowl is unfortunately, to me anyway, bordering on post hoc ergo propter hoc and a logical fallacy. They signed and drafted a lot of other guys who contributed to their SB run. Is everyone now irreplaceable? If your answer is yes then we just will have to agree to disagree on how we look at things. There is nothing championship caliber about picking Sony Michel. He was a below average running back who had, again, 1-2 good games in the playoffs. He never made a pro bowl. He was replaced by Damien Harris. He was shipped out of town for 2 day 3 picks. You don't know and I don't know if they win or don't win without him - I won't be able to prove that nor will you be able to be able to prove they couldn't have won without picking him. Maybe the Browns take Sony Michel instead of Chubb and Chubb falls to them? Maybe they trade for a veteran. Maybe they find a UDFA, give him the opportunity, and he turns into an average guy. It's impossible to know what they would have done or what could have happened. I can only point to his pedestrian stats, other factors like a dominant offensive line, and conclude that I think you're probably overvaluing his contribution and that he was likely replaceable even though he had an above average playoffs (I think - it's hard to untangle how good the line was vs Sony but let's give him the benefit of the doubt). It's also unclear how much he actually helped them win vs all other 21 starters. Personally I think the OL, defense, Edelman, and Gronk were more valuable. And that TB12 guy. If you argued they don't win the SB without Gronk, TB12, Edelman, etc, I have no qualms with it. Those are very good players and unlike Sony it would have been extremely difficult to replace their production in a hypothetical. They also play much more valuable positions that are less dependent on other factors like an OL. WRs are somewhat QB dependent but good/great receivers still produce with them (See TO, A-Rob as two examples). But you're telling me they don't win it without a mediocre RB and that's just infinitely harder for me to buy.

There is an element to hypotheticals that is probably frustrating which is it's a lot of speculating on unknowns. I'm comfortable with this particular one but it's ultimately a thought exercise and YMMV. It's unlikely that you or I are going to change each others minds but I at least want you to know where I am coming from.

Incredible post, SMU. One question I have: how much does a QB play into the success of running plays? One anecdotal thing from 2018 is that the Patriots seemed to shift somewhat strongly to a run-first/pass-second offensive mentality that season, despite having the best QB of all time under center.

But in addition to your analysis of Sony and the OL, it made sense for a lot of receiving personnel reasons – Gronk was pretty much hurt all year, Edelman was suspended at the start of the season and a lot of the receiving corps was aging or sort of past their sell date (and one of them—Patterson—would eventually transition to RB altogether).

But—and this is where maybe this convo comes back to Mac—how much of the success of that running game was also due to Brady’s ability to read defenses pre-snap and adjust the play call accordingly? Is that a skill? If so, how valuable is it? Given that this year’s team seems to be relying more on the pass than running for the first time in four seasons (or at least trying to stretch the field more), it seems like a relevant point of inquiry.

 

[BaseballJones]

To @SMU_Sox - great post about Sony. You made the case well that there’s good reason to believe the Pats could/would have won without Sony, due to the quality of O-line play etc.

However, SJH’s point is valid in that in the REAL world, Sony REALLY produced. And his performance REALLY helped the Patriots win three playoff games, including the Super Bowl.

That can’t be hand waved away with hypotheticals. Maybe another RB replaces Sony and runs just as well BUT coughs up the football in a key moment. We will never know. What we DO know is what ACTUALLY happened, and what ACTUALLY happened was that he ran well and piled up yards and touchdowns and in part due to his contribution, the Patriots became champions.

Note: your post was anything but hand-waving. It was thorough and detailed and well thought out. The point is that we just can’t dismiss what Sony did.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

He wasn't dismissing what Michel did at all--he was simply detailing how he did it.

And we all know what ACTUALLY happened in the REAL world, but that doesn't confirm the assertion that drafting Sony was the only path in the known universe to winning SB53, which is what SJH said.

 

[Valek123]

Mac Jones is reminding me more and more of Mark Sanchez. If you cover the first option well and get any pressure in the pocket he will not be successful, he is not quick to progressions and missed a TON of throws that were open last weekend that he either didn't see or didn't step up into the pocket to throw to. I was high on him early last year but the regression has been extremely disappointing, I'm sure some is the system changes but he does not seem comfortable or decisive. I have absolutely zero faith he can lead a late game drive, the offense looked horrific last weekend. Thank god the Defense essentially scored 12 points.

They need to see what they can get from him the rest of the year, see if he can make changes then this off-season I think we will see changes if he does not make a progression. I would not at all be surprised to see Zappe the last two games of the season if they are not in contention for a playoff slot so BB can get more game film to make the next decisions.

I can't wait to watch the all-22 from last weekend but it may need to be with a glass of Bourbon.

 

[BaseballJones]

He wasn't dismissing what Michel did at all--he was simply detailing how he did it.

Eh.... that's how it came off to me. Here's what he said that indicated to me that he was essentially saying, look, pretty much any average RB could have replaced Sony and done that.

"Sony, an average to below average RB who had 1 to maybe 2 good games in the playoffs and was not a factor at all as a passing back, was a small but meaningful part of their championship run at a position that is the easiest or one of the easiest to replace."

"While it is true you can't say "anyone could have replaced him" you can say it is more likely than not that an average quality back could have replaced his production behind their excellent offensive line."

So it seemed to me that the was saying that Sony's contributions weren't anything special or significant. But maybe I'm reading him wrong.

And we all know what ACTUALLY happened in the REAL world, but that doesn't confirm the assertion that drafting Sony was the only path in the known universe to winning SB53, which is what SJH said.

I agree with you that obviously there could have been any number of paths to winning the Super Bowl that year. But the one that happened in the real world, with Sony Michel being a major contributor, is the only one that actually took place.

 

[Shelterdog]

I think the football outsiders view that RBs are fungible is often viewed perhaps too literally. Drafting Touchdown Tommy in the top ten doesn't make sense--sure--but looking at the Sony Michel year Chase Edmonds Royce Feeman (a fourth and a third round pick) are the only players taken after Round 2 that have 1250 career rusingh yards or more-- Chubb of Ronald Jones might have been better picks at Rb but both went high in the second. Looking at the current top 20 running backs by yards I think there are seven first round picks seven second two thirds, three fourths one fifth and one udfa--the idea that you can just run out Olandis Gady and Mike Anderson and Terrell Davis out of nowhere with a good system doesn't really hold true (and perhaps it was never true).

EDIT: I'm not saying build a team with first round picks but I think the Pats approach--getting guys in rounds two-five fairly consistently and hoping some hit--is the smart approach and hoping to fill the spot with UDFAs/waiver guys/late round picks isn't likely to be a particularly sucessful one.

 

[Strike4]

Andy Hart goes on the Big Jab morning show every week to talk Pats and he had some pretty illuminating thoughts yesterday:

• He said Mac Jones is "way down the list of things wrong with the Patriots offense right now". He barely talked about his issue because:
• Says the offensive line is a mess and the issue is really that some guys just aren't good. Mentioned how the line is basically everything.
• WRs are worse than last year and Mac understandably gets little help from guys who can't be relied on for 50/50 balls. Mac has little trust in them.
• Hart is very measured so it was surprising to hear him say that Patricia is not working out and never will and that's on Belichek.
• New coordinators, scheme problems, and messing with Mac's confidence is definitely an issue, but again that is down the list compared to offensive line problems.
• He says things are probably not going to get much better since there's no offensive line solution and he does not see Patricia improving.

 

[Gash Prex]

Those notes are consistent with other thoughts on the colts gameplan which sounds terrible and the biggest issue is trust right now. I thought this was an excellent breakdown. Mac gets no breaks on this one but its all fixable IMO.

Midway through the season, there is little evidence of trust within the Patriots offense. Unsure of his protection, Mac Jones is prematurely bailing from pockets and cutting off full-field reads. The play-calling reflects a lack of belief in him and said pass-blocking. The wide receivers have gone AWOL outside of Jakobi Meyers, who fumbled Sunday.

Nothing is good enough, because from the coaches to the quarterback, receivers and offensive line, virtually no one has proven themselves trustworthy. The only player whose performance can be trusted week after week is Rhamondre Stevenson, a tackle-breaking machine who ranks second on the team in catches and has single-handedly carried the Pats’ run game since early October. Over the past four weeks, more than half of the Pats’ hand-offs have been met at or behind the line of scrimmage, per Sports Info. Solutions.

And on other snaps, Mac [he] settled for checkdowns after missing open receivers downfield off play-action, potential explosive plays down the drain. Of course, those were just a few of the snaps when Jones was allowed to pass.

Against the Colts, who owned the NFL’s sixth-best run defense by DVOA, Matt Patricia chose to call runs on eight of the Patriots’ initial 11 first-down plays. Two were successful and three went backwards. Meanwhile, Jones started 5-of-5 for 36 yards on first down, including a well-timed screen pass that sparked a scoring drive.

Overall, the Pats rushed on two-thirds of their first-down plays and gained 1.8 yards per carry, a pathetic average that routinely put them behind the chains. That inefficiency led directly to struggles on third down, where the Colts held a baked-in advantage, Patricia opened with a downfield screen on the Pats’ first drive and Jones ran into a sack that killed the second series.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/11/08/patriots-colts-film-review-the-no-1-problem-with-mac-jones-matt-patricia-and-the-offense/

 

[Shelterdog]

I don't know if Patricia is good or not.

I do know that the media HATES him personally. He must really rub people the wrong way off the record, like not give them anything. Hart and Bedard have been throwing darts his way for years.

 

[Bunt4aTriple]

I don't know if Patricia is good or not.

I do know that the media HATES him personally. He must really rub people the wrong way off the record, like not give them anything. Hart and Bedard have been throwing darts his way for years.

Anecdotal, but he went on Pardon My Take sometime during his Lions reign and before I stopped listening to Barstool, which should have been the biggest softball: laugh at jokes about his appearance, Patriot Way, etc. He was completely humorless and defensive. It never takes much to keep those guys on your good side, but he now goes down in their Guest Hall of Shame. I"m sure he gives off that "I'm smarter than you" to the beat guys as well.

 

[cornwalls@6]

Anecdotal, but he went on Pardon My Take sometime during his Lions reign and before I stopped listening to Barstool, which should have been the biggest softball: laugh at jokes about his appearance, Patriot Way, etc. He was completely humorless and defensive. It never takes much to keep those guys on your good side, but he now goes down in their Guest Hall of Shame. I"m sure he gives off that "I'm smarter than you" to the beat guys as well.

I think some of it is he that doesn’t have an effervescent, glib, sound bite personality. And because that makes their jobs harder, media people view that as a moral failing, rather than a personality trait. The attacks on him and his competence definitely feel at least partially personal to me, right down to the digs about his weight. I’m not saying he’s a great coach, but I find it hard to believe Bill would willfully keep a bad coach around just out of loyalty, or spite, or whatever.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

He wasn't dismissing what Michel did at all--he was simply detailing how he did it.

And we all know what ACTUALLY happened in the REAL world, but that doesn't confirm the assertion that drafting Sony was the only path in the known universe to winning SB53, which is what SJH said.

That's not what I said at all. What I said was that I took issue with the attempts to minimize Michel's contributions and thus his value as a draft pick, BECAUSE no matter what situation he was put in, he actually played, actually put up those numbers, actually produced and produced a lot, and actually was one of the core contributors to a Super Bowl title. Real world results matter.

I respect SMU's methodology and his post was fascinating. At the same time.....we have what Sony actually did. I veer heavily away from any line of argument that says "oh any RB could have done that" (and I'm not saying that's what SMU said). I do not believe for one second that "any RB" would have done that. Maybe another one produces more. Maybe another one produces less. BJ said it best: all I know is that Sony produced at a championship level. Without him in the lineup, I am not anywhere near confident the Patriots win SB 53.

A flag flies forever. You don't get an extra one for being ultra-efficient with your draft picks. You get one because the players on the field produced in the scheme you drew up. In those terms, Sony Michel was a fantastic pick.

 

[Gash Prex]

I think some of it is he that doesn’t have an effervescent, glib, sound bite personality. And because that makes their jobs harder, media people view that as a moral failing, rather than a personality trait. The attacks on him and his competence definitely feel at least partially personal to me, right down to the digs about his weight. I’m not saying he’s a great coach, but I find it hard to believe Bill would willfully keep a bad coach around just out of loyalty, or spite, or whatever.

I think there is absolutely some valid criticism about his performance recently. At the beginning of the year I was willing to give him a chance but stuff like this:

View: https://twitter.com/_AndrewCallahan/status/1589633735485689857


Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Those notes are consistent with other thoughts on the colts gameplan which sounds terrible and the biggest issue is trust right now. I thought this was an excellent breakdown. Mac gets no breaks on this one but its all fixable IMO.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/11/08/patriots-colts-film-review-the-no-1-problem-with-mac-jones-matt-patricia-and-the-offense/

As the game went on and it was clear the Colts' offense wasn't going to be any kind of threat, running the ball and minimizing mistakes and turnovers seemed to be the best path to victory even with the OL struggles. Mac is a damned mess right now, so throwing it a lot and downfield likely wouldn't have been a winning strategy.

Mac is busted. It seems to me they're trying to build him back up again. We're very much back to like it's his rookie season all over again.

 

[Shelterdog]

As the game went on and it was clear the Colts' offense wasn't going to be any kind of threat, running the ball and minimizing mistakes and turnovers seemed to be the best path to victory even with the OL struggles. Mac is a damned mess right now, so throwing it a lot and downfield likely wouldn't have been a winning strategy.

Mac is busted. It seems to me they're trying to build him back up again. We're very much back to like it's his rookie season all over again.

You also don't get better running the ball by not running the ball. I don't know if "trying to establish the running game against a weak opponent when winning by a bunch" is a particularly bad thing.

EDIT: Haven't we all seen enough football life etc to know that BB is generally engaged in the play calling at at least the level of "run it" or "pass it"? Hard to believe that Matty P is going rogue running it so much on first downs against a good run stopping d.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Mac gets no time to throw, nobody is open or looking for the ball, and the play design brings guys together so it's easier to cover them. Mac has his faults which have been evident but '07 Brady wouldn't be doing much with this group. I couldn't believe Bill hired Patricia and Judge. It was bad when it was apparent no other coaches were going to be hired and it's even worse now. It's unfathomable to me that a coach like Bill Belichick could deduct that the best thing for the team(because that's what he says about everything else) was to entrust the future of the franchise QB with these two buffoons. Then, he makes Patricia the play caller and the OL coach. Who else in the league has this setup? How can the OL coach focus his energy on the line play while also worrying about formulating a game plan? It just makes absolutely no sense. The OL is the biggest position group on the team and the most important ingredient to success. How can you expect that the mistakes being made can be corrected if Patricia is focused on the playcalling during the game and not on the line play. Don't tell me that Billy Yates should be doing it. Get a real OL coach to come in and fix this mess and get a real offensive coordinator. This offense is a complete laughingstock. Mac Jones has regressed in part because of poor OL play and extremely poor coaching. He has also been stuck on his first read way too much. All of what's happening with Mac comes back to the coaching. Had they not spent the entire offseason trying to implement a system in which they've largely scrapped maybe they could have prevented all this. There's so many factors that go into this offense, but the nexus of all of them come back to the coaching.

Mike Reiss said today that the offense has had 31 plays that have gone for negative yards in the last 2 games.
View: https://twitter.com/danorlovsky7/status/1590035217229971456?s=20&t=xsSzr1--LmRXnIdg0OuBnA

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Mac gets no time to throw, nobody is open or looking for the ball, and the play design brings guys together so it's easier to cover them. Mac has his faults which have been evident but '07 Brady wouldn't be doing much with this group. I couldn't believe Bill hired Patricia and Judge. It was bad when it was apparent no other coaches were going to be hired and it's even worse now. It's unfathomable to me that a coach like Bill Belichick could deduct that the best thing for the team(because that's what he says about everything else) was to entrust the future of the franchise QB with these two buffoons. Then, he makes Patricia the play caller and the OL coach. Who else in the league has this setup? How can the OL coach focus his energy on the line play while also worrying about formulating a game plan? It just makes absolutely no sense. The OL is the biggest position group on the team and the most important ingredient to success. How can you expect that the mistakes being made can be corrected if Patricia is focused on the playcalling during the game and not on the line play. Don't tell me that Billy Yates should be doing it. Get a real OL coach to come in and fix this mess and get a real offensive coordinator. This offense is a complete laughingstock. Mac Jones has regressed in part because of poor OL play and extremely poor coaching. He has also been stuck on his first read way too much. All of what's happening with Mac comes back to the coaching. Had they not spent the entire offseason trying to implement a system in which they've largely scrapped maybe they could have prevented all this. There's so many factors that go into this offense, but the nexus of all of them come back to the coaching.

Mike Reiss said today that the offense has had 31 plays that have gone for negative yards in the last 2 games.
View: https://twitter.com/danorlovsky7/status/1590035217229971456?s=20&t=xsSzr1--LmRXnIdg0OuBnA

Looks like he had someone open for the first down but never looked that way.

 

[luckiestman]

Mac gets no time to throw, nobody is open or looking for the ball, and the play design brings guys together so it's easier to cover them. Mac has his faults which have been evident but '07 Brady wouldn't be doing much with this group. I couldn't believe Bill hired Patricia and Judge. It was bad when it was apparent no other coaches were going to be hired and it's even worse now. It's unfathomable to me that a coach like Bill Belichick could deduct that the best thing for the team(because that's what he says about everything else) was to entrust the future of the franchise QB with these two buffoons. Then, he makes Patricia the play caller and the OL coach. Who else in the league has this setup? How can the OL coach focus his energy on the line play while also worrying about formulating a game plan? It just makes absolutely no sense. The OL is the biggest position group on the team and the most important ingredient to success. How can you expect that the mistakes being made can be corrected if Patricia is focused on the playcalling during the game and not on the line play. Don't tell me that Billy Yates should be doing it. Get a real OL coach to come in and fix this mess and get a real offensive coordinator. This offense is a complete laughingstock. Mac Jones has regressed in part because of poor OL play and extremely poor coaching. He has also been stuck on his first read way too much. All of what's happening with Mac comes back to the coaching. Had they not spent the entire offseason trying to implement a system in which they've largely scrapped maybe they could have prevented all this. There's so many factors that go into this offense, but the nexus of all of them come back to the coaching.

Mike Reiss said today that the offense has had 31 plays that have gone for negative yards in the last 2 games.
View: https://twitter.com/danorlovsky7/status/1590035217229971456?s=20&t=xsSzr1--LmRXnIdg0OuBnA

Am I blind because the guy closest seems open. Don’t think the defender can close that fast on the ball

 

[NickEsasky]

The problem with that clip is Mac had a receiver open for the first but he was locked on to the 1-on-1 matchup at the bottom of the screen. So yeah plenty of blame to go around, but Mac deserves some on that play.

 

[cornwalls@6]

I think there is absolutely some valid criticism about his performance recently. At the beginning of the year I was willing to give him a chance but stuff like this:

View: https://twitter.com/_AndrewCallahan/status/1589633735485689857


Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Oh yeah, the performance hasn’t been there, and perfectly fair question the job he’s doing, and what % of the offensive failures that constitutes, along with injury, player performance, and a simple lack of elite talent. It just seems like some of the criticisms of him from the usual media types has a dose of personal venom involved as well.

 

[joe dokes]

Where's he supposed to throw it? Maybe that guy standing alone on the 20? Or the other guy that got behind the D on the right sideline. I dont claim to understand this stuff, but it looked like they had several receivers on the right and the 2 of them got open.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Looks like he had someone open for the first down but never looked that way.

Goes back to one of his faults of staying on his pre-determined first read this year.

 

[Strike4]

Mike Reiss said today that the offense has had 31 plays that have gone for negative yards in the last 2 games.

And even on the passing plays the fact that the offensive line is crumbling in sections also obscures things. It's difficult for a QB to step up in the pocket and hit the open guy when he's getting an offensive lineman pushed into his face and he needs to move. If you pause that clip at 12 seconds you can see that the right side of the line has been pushed back when Mac ends his dropback - right when the receiver is open at the 20. The pocket is basically rotated 90 degrees and Mac heads in that direction (i.e. down) to get there. I'm not blaming the line for this one, it's not a great play call/design when you are relying on your lineman to hold for that long when it's clear only one side can do that.

 

[tims4wins]

Lazar used that play as an example where Mac should have been able to find the open guy by coming off his first read

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Where's he supposed to throw it? Maybe that guy standing alone on the 20? Or the other guy that got behind the D on the right sideline. I dont claim to understand this stuff, but it looked like they had several receivers on the right and the 2 of them got open.

Yes but that doesn't blame Patricia for everything so it's being ignored.

Mac is locked into one read and isn't progressing. The playcall is good because there are opps to make the completion but Mac can't or won't pull the trigger.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

Mike Reiss said today that the offense has had 31 plays that have gone for negative yards in the last 2 games.
View: https://twitter.com/danorlovsky7/status/1590035217229971456?s=20&t=xsSzr1--LmRXnIdg0OuBnA

Orlovsky thinks that you can't throw to a receiver until he's looking for the ball? That clip ain't making the point he thinks it is.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Reiss's notebook cleanout, particular point No. 3, speaks to Mac's issues

View: https://twitter.com/MikeReiss/status/1589944616408604673/photo/1

 

[RedOctober3829]

Yes but that doesn't blame Patricia for everything so it's being ignored.

Mac is locked into one read and isn't progressing. The playcall is good because there are opps to make the completion but Mac can't or won't pull the trigger.

On some plays, this is true. Is that because he all of a sudden forgot how to read the field or is it a combination of factors including lack of time to throw, lack of separation with the WR's, and poor play calling?

 

[joe dokes]

Yes but that doesn't blame Patricia for everything so it's being ignored.

Mac is locked into one read and isn't progressing. The playcall is good because there are opps to make the completion but Mac can't or won't pull the trigger.

Yep. And there's a chicken-and-egg with the o-line as well. When the line holding up becomes the exception, rather than the rule, very few QB's are going to hang around long enough to go through reads. But on *this* play, to your point, if he's worried about the pocket crumbling, AND it's third and short, then get rid of it quickly to the open guy for the 1st down. It's like he's focussed too much on whatever mandate there is to *not* check down. Whatever Jones's faults are, there are too many moving parts that I can't really disaggregate to let me pronounce judgment on the entirety of Jones's future today. (Others' MMV, of course). He looked pretty good for much of last year; then he didn't; now he doesn't. I dont know what's next. But it's not *all* on him.

 

[mwonow]

Mac gets no time to throw, nobody is open or looking for the ball, and the play design brings guys together so it's easier to cover them. Mac has his faults which have been evident but '07 Brady wouldn't be doing much with this group. I couldn't believe Bill hired Patricia and Judge. It was bad when it was apparent no other coaches were going to be hired and it's even worse now. It's unfathomable to me that a coach like Bill Belichick could deduct that the best thing for the team(because that's what he says about everything else) was to entrust the future of the franchise QB with these two buffoons. Then, he makes Patricia the play caller and the OL coach. Who else in the league has this setup? How can the OL coach focus his energy on the line play while also worrying about formulating a game plan? It just makes absolutely no sense. The OL is the biggest position group on the team and the most important ingredient to success. How can you expect that the mistakes being made can be corrected if Patricia is focused on the playcalling during the game and not on the line play. Don't tell me that Billy Yates should be doing it. Get a real OL coach to come in and fix this mess and get a real offensive coordinator. This offense is a complete laughingstock. Mac Jones has regressed in part because of poor OL play and extremely poor coaching. He has also been stuck on his first read way too much. All of what's happening with Mac comes back to the coaching. Had they not spent the entire offseason trying to implement a system in which they've largely scrapped maybe they could have prevented all this. There's so many factors that go into this offense, but the nexus of all of them come back to the coaching.

Mike Reiss said today that the offense has had 31 plays that have gone for negative yards in the last 2 games.
View: https://twitter.com/danorlovsky7/status/1590035217229971456?s=20&t=xsSzr1--LmRXnIdg0OuBnA

Orlovsky...I remember years ago, watching a hockey game with Don Cherry as one of the color guys. The Red Wings got called for too many men on the ice - the camera focused on Jacques Demers - and Cherry went ballistic (Sure, focus on the coach! Focus on Jacques! HE sent that guy out there! Focus on the coach!)

I wonder if Orlovsky gets similar PTSD when people say "hey, that QB sucks!"

 

[DJnVa]

The line on Mac's right is starting to collapse, the receiver who would come open is not yet open and has 2 defenders nearby, and the aforementioned OL on that side being pushed back. Additionally, the route has 3 receivers within 5 yards of each other. I think that's Orlovsky's main issue--the play design.

Then, as pocket on Mac's right collapses, he slides left and that receiver then comes open because a throw that way would be across Mac's body and through a tangle of OL and DL, so the defender left that area.

Perhaps he still should have gone there, and I get that--but the play design on 3rd and short(ish) had 3 receivers running routes in same area, 2 of which are longer routes, needing time to develop, which means the OL has to hold up. It didn't, Mac is skittish, and boom, bad play.






This isn't a good play for Mac or for Patricia. Was there a play to me made? Possibly. But it's on the staff to put players in the best position to succeed.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Lazar: "Jones's statistical regression from league-average as a rookie to one of the least efficient passers in the NFL is a trickle-down effect. He did not get here on his own. The play-calling and designs need to improve, the offensive line situation is dire, receiver spacing and separation is inconsistent, and now Mac is playing poorly (27th out of 34 QBs in EPA per drop-back). Yes, both things can be true, the situation around the quarterback needs to improve and so does the quarterback."
https://www.patriots.com/news/after-further-review-breaking-down-patriots-offense-mac-jones-vs-colts

 

[FL4WL3SS]

Does this also explain why he regressed pretty badly after the Buffalo wind game last year?

He's not a good QB, plain and simple. We can make all the excuses for him in the world, but he's not able to elevate an offense and requires the perfect setup for him to be an average QB.

Edit: I'm not saying he can't improve. Although obviously I'm pretty down on him since day 1

 

[E5 Yaz]

What Lazar was pointing out there was that, while Mac certainly deserves his share of the blame, the Patriots struggles on offense are a multi-faceted problem. Labelling the other contributing factors as "excuses" basically implies that those things don't matter and it's all on the quarterback.
How any quarterback is supposed to elevate the game of Isaiah Wynn, as a prime example, is beyond my basic understanding of football. Why the coaching staff has de-emphasized Bourne this season isn't a quarterback issue either.
It's all part of the same problem, which only exacerbate the flaws in Mac's own game.

 

[BigJimEd]

Completely disagree. The receiver is open before Mac finishes his drop. You can pause the video at 11-12 seconds, receiver is making his break gaining separation before anyone can react. The LB in middle is back pedaling so he's not an issue. It's a short easy throw that Johnny from Foxboro could fit in there.
Mac is looking left though and never really comes off it. The play was there and there was nothing wrong with that play design.
The two guys nearby are causing rubs, pulling defenders away and causing confusion. yes, they are running longer patterns but you cannot always have everyone run quick routes. They also got the one on one matchup near the sideline that Mac was looking at. Receiver just couldn't get separation that Mac was expecting.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Completely disagree. The receiver is open before Mac finishes his drop. You can pause the video at 11-12 seconds, receiver is making his break gaining separation before anyone can react. The LB in middle is back pedaling so he's not an issue. It's a short easy throw that Johnny from Foxboro could fit in there.
Mac is looking left though and never really comes off it. The play was there and there was nothing wrong with that play design.
The two guys nearby are causing rubs, pulling defenders away and causing confusion. yes, they are running longer patterns but you cannot always have everyone run quick routes. They also got the one on one matchup near the sideline that Mac was looking at. Receiver just couldn't get separation that Mac was expecting.

All of which makes me wonder what the actual first read on the play should be. Because as you say, he looked left and froze on that read. Is the play designed to go to the left, or is that first read supposed to be a fake-out to draw defense, then throw to the open man.
That play is a Rorschach Test for analysis

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

nm

 

[NickEsasky]

All of which makes me wonder what the actual first read on the play should be. Because as you say, he looked left and froze on that read. Is the play designed to go to the left, or is that first read supposed to be a fake-out to draw defense, then throw to the open man.
That play is a Rorschach Test for analysis

I've never played QB at a high level but my guess is pre-snap Mac saw he had 1-on-1 coverage there and figured he could make it work. Then it seems he locked in despite the receiver being covered extremely tight.

 

[Gash Prex]

Does this also explain why he regressed pretty badly after the Buffalo wind game last year?

One of my theories I've been kicking around is that game killed Mac's confidence given that BB showed no confidence in Mac on national TV and in some ways embarrassed him. I know why he did it given the conditions but I think it had some unintended consequences.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

One of my theories I've been kicking around is that game killed Mac's confidence given that BB showed no confidence in Mac on national TV and in some ways embarrassed him. I know why he did it given the conditions but I think it had some unintended consequences.

If this is true, we have a bigger problem. I refuse to believe he's this fragile.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I refuse to believe he's this fragile.

He doesn't look Italian

 

[Gash Prex]

If this is true, we have a bigger problem. I refuse to believe he's this fragile.

Bigger problems than what? You are convinced Mac is not the answer.

Like I said its just a personal theory on why Mac after that game has not been the same. Maybe the league figured him out and its not very complicated. But what I see is a lack of confidence in what he is seeing on the field.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

Bigger problems than what? You are convinced Mac is not the answer.

Like I said its just a personal theory on why Mac after that game has not been the same. Maybe the league figured him out and its not very complicated. But what I see is a lack of confidence in what he is seeing on the field.

The bigger problem being that he's completely irredeemable. There's hope he can improve, if a single game wrecks his confidence then what are we left with?

Regardless of what I personally think, I still respect the opinions of the collective wisdom of the people here. If there's hope amongst us then I can get on board.