The Michael McCorkle "Mac" Jones Thread

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,348
Ok well if that’s how you want to play it then we shouldn’t give BB credit for any other position aside from maybe QB. Head coaches rarely develop guys like their positional coaches and the coaches they see in the off-season. Development is a multiple coaching effort. Positional coaches, offensive or defensive coordinator, situational coordinators, off-season private coaching is HUGE too. For OL I’d argue they develop more in the off-season with stuff like technique. So sure, Bill doesn’t do a lot to develop most people. He will go over and coach up players and units during games and practices which helps. But… the HC delegates development to other positions. That’s just par for the course.

If that’s your point then I agree with you. Development is not a one person thing. Better hire and cultivate the right staff though…
The thing that BB has always done better than everyone else in the NFL is put players in a position to succeed. He's the one that comes up with the "focus on these three things" this week for players. Mostly on defense. It's why guys like Bruschi, and Ted Johnson and Vrabel and Van Noy succeed when they aren't true superstars. Then he uses his superstars for the spots he needs them, #1 corner, #1 QB, interior defensive line, and IMO, safety.

But the idea that BB was out there in the offseason working up the route tree with Edelman isn't based in fact. It just isn't. BB has never focused his attention on the offense, except at the QB position. He had Dante handling the offensive line, and a cast of great OC's. Defensively, and game planning, that's all Bill.
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,499
Overland Park, KS
Thank you, because this is the point I'm making all along. I can grant you those 6 teams as no doubt worse than NE at Oline and skill positions.

That's 6 out of 32 teams. That means Mac, a 2nd year QB, is playing with an offense around him that arguably doesn't crack the top 25 in the NFL, but we're asking him to play like a top 10, maybe top 15 guy. Yet somehow, the Pats are still sitting there at 6-5. I'm not even a huge Mac fan, but I think from an unbiased view, the guy is doing about as much as he can do with the steaming pile of shit that BB, the GM has put around him.
I think you are pushing this too far. The skill players are basically the same as last year (perhaps better with the addition of Parker and the improvement of Stevenson) and this team was 6th in points scored during 2021 with a rookie QB. The offensive line has played worse. The red zone offense in 2022 is horrendous. This has been a coaching fuck up. The line has looked bad since camp, the offense was feeble all summer. It was the coaches who flipped the tackles, tried to implement more wide zone runs, and BB traded Shaq. This year has been an organizational failure on offense.
58252
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
The thing that BB has always done better than everyone else in the NFL is put players in a position to succeed. He's the one that comes up with the "focus on these three things" this week for players. Mostly on defense. It's why guys like Bruschi, and Ted Johnson and Vrabel and Van Noy succeed when they aren't true superstars. Then he uses his superstars for the spots he needs them, #1 corner, #1 QB, interior defensive line, and IMO, safety.

But the idea that BB was out there in the offseason working up the route tree with Edelman isn't based in fact. It just isn't. BB has never focused his attention on the offense, except at the QB position. He had Dante handling the offensive line, and a cast of great OC's. Defensively, and game planning, that's all Bill.
I'm now kind of at a loss. So BB doesn't get credit for the development of individual players on the Patriots?

He also does do at least some one on one coaching:

https://www.masslive.com/sports/2019/02/patriots-didnt-know-how-to-use-julian-edelman-when-they-drafted-him-bill-belichick-showed-him-how-to-catch-punts.html
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,072
Philly
It’s kind of like asking how much credit to Frito-Lay’s/PepsiCo Foods North America’s CEO would you give to brand innovations. Well, for their big bets the CEO is involved but the brand and food science teams are carrying the load. CEO helps make the bets and does get involved to help guide the strategy. Ultimately innovation success involves everyone/a-lot-of-people in the organization kind of like how it does with developing a player. The player also is doing a lot himself.

Cleaned up some org/job title stuff. Buy Pepsi.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,072
Philly
I suppose I am coming down in the middle of this. It’s disingenuous to completely separate BB the CEO of the organization from player development. He helps facilitate that and is directly involved at times. It’s also disingenuous to say well it’s all BB. Of course it isn’t. By it’s nature this is a process with a lot of hands involved. How much credit you give to him is ultimately up to you but he should get some.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
I suppose I am coming down in the middle of this. It’s disingenuous to completely separate BB the CEO of the organization from player development. He helps facilitate that and is directly involved at times. It’s also disingenuous to say well it’s all BB. Of course it isn’t. By it’s nature this is a process with a lot of hands involved. How much credit you give to him is ultimately up to you but he should get some.
I don't think anyone thinks it's all BB. But BB certainly was part of the decision to draft a positionless guy, BB certainly kept him on the 53 before he was ready to be more than a special teams guy, BB certainly is ultimately responsible for the assistant coaches, drills, etc that worked more closely with Edelman, and BB certainly gave some one on one coaching and guidance over the years, BB certainly decided not to re-sign Welker and give Edelman more PT, etc.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,880
Rodgers is also not hitting reads he has hit before. He's performing worse vs years past and it can't be explained away with supporting cast. JTO had some great pieces about it on his Patreon. Rodgers is playing at a level worse than before and it isn't particularly close.
Rodgers has performed at similar levels in 2015 and 2017 (shortened due to a broken clavicle).

58256
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,880
My take on Mac is the same as it's been... if he gets no pressure he's good, if he gets pressured he's not that good, if he gets a lot of pressure he's horrific.

Now what can you do about it..... build up the line, invest in skill position players, then draft a potential replacement after year 3 or 4, because he's not a guy you give a 2nd contract likely, but all the things that will help make him look good will be really useful for the rookie you bring in when Mac is about to get expensive.
Yeah, this is where I'm at too -- with the acknowledgement that QBs might shift in the third year, so we'll see. Might also be worth trading Mac if BB can squeeze out a 1st round pick.

FWIW, I see a lot more defensiveness regarding a QB who has had one good game out of nine this season, than I see folks wanting to "dump" Mac.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,475
FWIW, I see a lot more defensiveness regarding a QB who has had one good game out of nine this season, than I see folks wanting to "dump" Mac.
One good game? His QB rating over his last 4 is over 100, but he's played good once all year? Trade him for a first rounder? To draft another QB and do this again? But at least that guy will be replacing Mac Jones and not the GOAT. What are we doing here?

That nonsense aside:
View: https://twitter.com/ezlazar/status/1597754853404856320
 
Last edited:

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,159
Yeah, this is where I'm at too -- with the acknowledgement that QBs might shift in the third year, so we'll see. Might also be worth trading Mac if BB can squeeze out a 1st round pick.

FWIW, I see a lot more defensiveness regarding a QB who has had one good game out of nine this season, than I see folks wanting to "dump" Mac.
"Lets wait and see" is not the opposite of "he's got no chance."
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The Pats aren't asking him to play like a top 15 guy. The folks in this thread, week in and week out are asking him to do so. I was at the Jets game last week, and watched the conditions he was throwing in, and how he managed that game, and I thought he was really, really good. Open SoSH and well, it sounds like he was the worst QB in the NFL at the time. This week, he's blasted around here for taking a sack, in a game where he put up a 120 rating.

And the Pats defense will not be top 3 much longer, in any respect. The Sam Ehlingers, Zach Wilson's, Jacoby Brissett's and Jared Goff schedule is done. They've faced 5 good quarterbacks this year, and they are 0-5, and have given up 150 points. Josh Allen twice, Kyler, Burrow and Tua are all coming up. This defense better hope for some shitty ass weather.

There are nowhere near 8-10 in the same range as New England. If there were, folks could name them.

And we aren't even getting into the conversation that Mac is being "coached up" by Matt Patricia and the whole coordinator situation is a joke.
Amen to all of this, especially the notion that Mac's good games are often dismissed as being against poor defenses and his gutty efforts against good defenses are dismissed as poor, while a similar standard is not applied to the Pats defense, which has been great against crappy QBs and crappy against great ones. Both Mac and the defense have a lot to prove in the coming weeks, and it begins on Thursday.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
One good game? His QB rating over his last 4 is over 100, but he's played good once all year?
Yes, one good game. I don't even think this is controversial tbh. Miami they only scored 7 points (and Mac had 2 TOs), Pittsburgh just 17 (and one score was run in after a muffed punt) with another pick, Baltimore they scored / moved the ball but Mac threw three picks. He got hurt, missed the next three, then Chicago he only played 2 series (0 points), then we have the ghastly three game stretch vs the Jets twice and Colts once, where he finally cut down on the picks but the offense really struggled to move the ball / put up points. One good game is fair. You could argue a couple other games were OK, but I certainly wouldn't argue "good."
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,880
"Lets wait and see" is not the opposite of "he's got no chance."
“He’s got no chance RIGHT NOW” is definitely not the opposite, in fact it’s quite complimentary.



One good game? His QB rating over his last 4 is over 100, but he's played good once all year? Trade him for a first rounder? To draft another QB and do this again? But at least that guy will be replacing Mac Jones and not the GOAT. What are we doing here?

That nonsense aside:
View: https://twitter.com/ezlazar/status/1597754853404856320
You are a silly post, and I fart in your general direction ;)

In the last year of a given QBs contract, if you can trade that player, which you don’t plan to resign, for a 1st round pick, you do it every time — minimizes the sunk cost of the QB. To keep a QB for a year to field a half-competitive team would be silly to its long-term future.

I also find it hilarious that you are defending Mac with single statistics when the whole picture speaks otherwise. he ranks in the bottom third in nearly every other statistic in that tweet EXCEPT CPOE — do you seriously think Mac is playing like a top ten QB? Only held back by his offense? That’s adorable :)

Like I said, I see more defensiveness and Mac defenders refusing to admit the reality that Mac has had one good game than folks wanting to dump Mac now. In fact, I see more silly defensive posts gaslighting the latter, than a rare few posts ( if any ) that even claim the latter; wanting to start Zappe in order to minimize injury to a starting QB and let them heal is not the same as “dumping” them.

it’s also the same message board with some incredible and nuanced posters as well, I read them for insights instead of laughs.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,511
CPOE is very limited metric, it's why even Baldwin uses it in combination with EPA... a high CPOE and a low EPA doesn't indicate a good QB in any way... Mac's most similar comp this year in both metrics is Kenny Pickett. One other interesting thing for comp%, is that Mac's Expected Completion percentage in 7th highest in the league, so he's being given (or taking) a lot of throws that you expect QBs to complete.

There is really no statistical evidence to support anything other than Mac being one of the worse QBs in the league by performance this year. Now, is some of that because of factors outside his control... sure, but a lot of it is on him. The question going forward will be, can he make adjustments and become a guy who can execute despite other issues with the team going forward. He's young enough that it's possible, and the staff has clearly tried to simplify things for him the last few weeks, but a reasonable view of Mac has to start with "he hasn't been good this year so far, how do they fix that"


EDIT- also worth mentioning that one of the admitted issues with CPOE is that it also depends on pass-catchers, who have a not-insignificant impact on the stat. (for example one reason in the past Kyler Murray was a top CPOE guy was that Hopkins makes a ton of low probability catches in tight coverage).
 
Last edited:

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,475
The whole "Mac Jones wasn't good when he completed 23 of 27 passes with 9.1 Y/A on real windy day" gets me every time.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,473
Manchester, N.H.
Just to add one thing in, and fading back, we are comparing Mac's stats missing games against Green Bay, Cleveland and Detroit - two of the three worst defenses in football and a bottom third defense. Zappe was good to great against them but when using full seasons stats, I think only the Steelers ranked worse than any of those three. Not that Mac has run the gamut of amazing defenses (the Jets have been very good, Colts and Ravens above average) but I wonder what taking out three of the four easiest D's they've faced this year (minus Chicago which was just a complete disaster across the board really, they're ranked low now but that defense was doing well at the time) is doing stat wise. It's a bit like the Matt Cassel argument - yeah 11-5 but with an all-world offense and an all-time easy schedule.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,930
South Dartmouth, MA
The whole "Mac Jones wasn't good when he completed 23 of 27 passes with 9.1 Y/A on real windy day" gets me every time.
It's wild. Jets have the 2nd best pass defense based on passer rating against (currently at 77.1), yet Mac's 104.6 rating in those conditions isn't good.
Rodgers vs Jets = 88.1
Rypien vs Jets = 56.9
Mac vs Jets rd 1 = 79.9
Allen vs Jets = 46.8 (although 86 rush yards and 2 rush TDs help make up for it
Siemien vs Jets = 75.2
Worth noting, by the way, the Jets only losses since going down to the Benglas on 9/25 are to Mac Jones and the Patriots. I get it - there is more to quarterbacking than rating, and wins for that matter...and fwiw I highly doubt Mac is the long term answer. But reaching so hard to find the negative really nullifies legit arguments as to why Mac hasn't been good. It's Felger and Mazz type stuff. Actually maybe even a step down from that because I think even those jabronis gave Mac some credit for his play the last couple of games.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,930
South Dartmouth, MA
They scored 3 points!
Do we blame the o line/rbs at all for that? Harris had 52 yards on 2 carries...the other 21 carries from Harris/Stevenson netted 39 yards.

edit: conversely...based on that point total logic did Mac play well when they put up 26 vs Baltimore? or the first jets game when they put up 22? both pretty decent point totals...
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,513
I am going to push back a bit on the "one good game" narrative. He had an inarguably good game against the Vikes. If there is anything to quibble with is that he missed on a couple of throws in the 4th quarter, although the officials missed a blatant face mask on one drive, and Agholor stutter stepped on the 4th-and-long pass that some thought should have also been flagged.

However, he was actually better against the Jets than some here give him credit for, which is fair given the lack of pointz scored. But looking at the Pats drives:

1: Sack on first pass attempt of the game.
2: Mac was let down by Thornton on a catchable ball on 3rd down.
3: Mac led them 74 yards down the field for the offense's only points of the game.
4: Mac led them into the red zone before the OL gave up a penalty and sack.
5: Not much of a drive as Bill decides to run the clock down and get warm in the locker room.
6: Another sack and penalty after the offense sniffs the border of the red zone.
7: 2 nice completions followed by 2 unsuccessful runs and another sack.
8: Mac completes the one short pass he is tasked to throw.
9: Drive starts with another sack setting up 2nd-and-long.
10: Mac completes the one pass, scrambles on anotherk.

Mac probably could have played better, but he was hardly the only problem. The OL was simply awful all game (and the Jets D played really well, as they have done all season). Some of the league's better QB's would have struggled in that game.

Has Mac had a good season? Absolutely not, even before his ankle injury. But he has shown signs of turning the corner that extend just beyond "one game". QB's worse than Mac this season include Zach Wilson (obviously), Kenny Pickett, Baker Mayfield, Russell Wilson, Carson Wentz, Kyler Murray, and arguably Matt Ryan. And there are others that haven't been all that much better such as Jacoby Brissett and Aaron Rodgers. He may yet end up in the median of the league's QB 's by the team the season is over.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,511
Do we blame the o line/rbs at all for that? Harris had 52 yards on 2 carries...the other 21 carries from Harris/Stevenson netted 39 yards.

edit: conversely...based on that point total logic did Mac play well when they put up 26 vs Baltimore? or the first jets game when they put up 22? both pretty decent point totals...
I thought he played pretty well against the Jets.. but if we're going to parse it, a huge percentage of his yards in that game came on YAC on designed screens and dumpoffs, so you have to credit the line and RB/TE corps for that if you ding them for run struggles.

I think Mac has played 2 good games this year, MIN and NYJ. The MIN game was better. Now if I wanted to be negative, the NYJ game was in part driven by not needing to score points, which makes it a lot easier to just take the easy yards on dump-offs/screens and settling for long FGs. Still, you play the game in front of you, and that game called for not screwing up over making plays from the QB.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,821
Hingham, MA
I thought he played pretty well against the Jets.. but if we're going to parse it, a huge percentage of his yards in that game came on YAC on designed screens and dumpoffs, so you have to credit the line and RB/TE corps for that if you ding them for run struggles.

I think Mac has played 2 good games this year, MIN and NYJ. The MIN game was better. Now if I wanted to be negative, the NYJ game was in part driven by not needing to score points, which makes it a lot easier to just take the easy yards on dump-offs/screens and settling for long FGs. Still, you play the game in front of you, and that game called for not screwing up over making plays from the QB.
Wait, is this true? I thought we had data that only a small handful of his completions were within 5 yards of the LOS in that game?
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,930
South Dartmouth, MA
I thought he played pretty well against the Jets.. but if we're going to parse it, a huge percentage of his yards in that game came on YAC on designed screens and dumpoffs, so you have to credit the line and RB/TE corps for that if you ding them for run struggles.

I think Mac has played 2 good games this year, MIN and NYJ. The MIN game was better. Now if I wanted to be negative, the NYJ game was in part driven by not needing to score points, which makes it a lot easier to just take the easy yards on dump-offs/screens and settling for long FGs. Still, you play the game in front of you, and that game called for not screwing up over making plays from the QB.
Agree with everything you wrote...the bolded is where I'm at. And was simply trying to push back against those looking for any excuse to be negative about him
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Do we blame the o line/rbs at all for that? Harris had 52 yards on 2 carries...the other 21 carries from Harris/Stevenson netted 39 yards.
Yes, absolutely. The run game was awful. Stevenson had 15 carries and 1 first down. It was a bigger culprit than the passing game. However, I would not say the passing game was good. The average looks good but they only had 8 passing first downs for the game. They were lousy on third down, lousy in the red zone, which is why that 9.1 YPA only translated to 3 offensive points. It's not all Mac's fault - I would say this is one of the games you could argue was "OK", but I certainly wouldn't say it was a "good" performance.

edit: conversely...based on that point total logic did Mac play well when they put up 26 vs Baltimore? or the first jets game when they put up 22? both pretty decent point totals...
22 points is just about league average, and that was propped up by 3 FG drives where they gained less than 20 yards. So no, that wasn't good, at all.
Baltimore would have been good if not for three picks. It was certainly one of the two best games Mac had in terms of moving the ball (along with the Vikings game), and the D was a bigger culprit than the O. You could argue it was an "OK" performance but I wouldn't call it a "good" one, not with three INTs in the second half.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,930
South Dartmouth, MA
Yes, absolutely. The run game was awful. Stevenson had 15 carries and 1 first down. It was a bigger culprit than the passing game. However, I would not say the passing game was good. The average looks good but they only had 8 passing first downs for the game. They were lousy on third down, lousy in the red zone, which is why that 9.1 YPA only translated to 3 offensive points. It's not all Mac's fault - I would say this is one of the games you could argue was "OK", but I certainly wouldn't say it was a "good" performance.


22 points is just about league average, and that was propped up by 3 FG drives where they gained less than 20 yards. So no, that wasn't good, at all.
Baltimore would have been good if not for three picks. It was certainly one of the two best games Mac had in terms of moving the ball (along with the Vikings game), and the D was a bigger culprit than the O. You could argue it was an "OK" performance but I wouldn't call it a "good" one, not with three INTs in the second half.
for the record I agree that his performances in the first jets game and baltimore game were not good...I was trying to refute the 3 point total in 2nd jets game isn't a great indicator of Mac's good performance.
The rest of your reasoning brings up a slightly separate argument, in that I tend to agree that in a vacuum Mac was only "ok" vs jets in game 2, but relative to how the jets have been defending this year I move it to "good."
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,249
Mac had a better performance in Jets II than against the Vikings. Despite a better defense and conditions that made throwing harder, he had better ball placement in the Jets game. In both games he kept the ball out of danger and made good decisions, though the decisions were harder against the Jets. 3 points is a team offense measurement, not a QB measurement.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,348
Mac had a better performance in Jets II than against the Vikings. Despite a better defense and conditions that made throwing harder, he had better ball placement in the Jets game. In both games he kept the ball out of danger and made good decisions, though the decisions were harder against the Jets. 3 points is a team offense measurement, not a QB measurement.
Reminds me of someone else early in their career. Who could that be?

Now, I'm not saying Mac Jones will ever be Tom Brady, nobody will, but if Tom Brady doesn't win the Super Bowl in 2001, and if SoSH existed in it's current form, folks would be asking for Tom to be traded for a 1st rounder or something.

Tom Brady in the last 6 games of the season: 61% completion, 1,232 yards, 6td's, 5 int's, 85.7 rating

If you eliminate the 1st game in that stretch, the last 5 games were 61% completion, 974 yards, 2td's, 5ints and a rating of 72.6%.

Tom Brady's rating in the 3 playoff games that year, 77.3% with 1int and 1td.

The difference is Tom Brady and the Pats went 9-0 in that stretch.

Tom Brady was older then than Mac Jones is right now by a few months, IIRC.

Tom, IMO, had slightly better weapons, a better offensive line, and a defense/special teams that scored like 10td's.

Then the defense went otherworldly and they won 2 more. Then the Pats got him some weapons, and Tom went otherworldly.

People can view my thoughts on this however they want, but that's the view I take, having attended almost every single game the Pats played. Mac Jones has a bottom quarter offense around him. If the Pats win games, they are going to win ugly. There are less than a handful of QB's in the NFL right now (Mahomes, Allen maybe....) that could take this Pats offense, and get them scoring points regularly. Add in the fact that you have an offensive "coordinator" that has no idea what he's doing and I'm going to argue until I'm blue that Mac isn't getting a fair shake around here.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,511
Mac had a better performance in Jets II than against the Vikings. Despite a better defense and conditions that made throwing harder, he had better ball placement in the Jets game. In both games he kept the ball out of danger and made good decisions, though the decisions were harder against the Jets. 3 points is a team offense measurement, not a QB measurement.
I thought he was better against the Vikings. I think that decisions are much harder when you have to make throws to score points than when you don't. The Jets game was a good example of taking what you're given/what's designed and not making mistakes, but it was also possible in part because he could afford to take no chances because of the score. MIN he had to make more decisions in terms of risk, and throw downfield more, he did that well. The Jets gameplan was pretty heavily the backup QB gameplan... don't screw up, if you get in 3rd and long don't worry about getting the 1st as much as not turning it over. Getting in FG range is the goal. The Vikings could and did score points, so he had to open it up a bit more (yes against a really bad secondary) and really try to push the ball downfield more, more than twice as many attempts beyond 10 yards, almost twice as many attempts beyond 5 yards. It was a much more aggressive gameplan and decision tree, which is a lot harder to execute well.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,249
I thought he was better against the Vikings. I think that decisions are much harder when you have to make throws to score points than when you don't. The Jets game was a good example of taking what you're given/what's designed and not making mistakes, but it was also possible in part because he could afford to take no chances because of the score. MIN he had to make more decisions in terms of risk, and throw downfield more, he did that well. The Jets gameplan was pretty heavily the backup QB gameplan... don't screw up, if you get in 3rd and long don't worry about getting the 1st as much as not turning it over. Getting in FG range is the goal. The Vikings could and did score points, so he had to open it up a bit more (yes against a really bad secondary) and really try to push the ball downfield more, more than twice as many attempts beyond 10 yards, almost twice as many attempts beyond 5 yards. It was a much more aggressive gameplan and decision tree, which is a lot harder to execute well.
They couldn't take deep chances against NYJ because of the weather, not the score. You saw what happened to Folk's kicks and what happened when Wilson, he of the elite arm strength, tried to push the ball downfield. But that adds to the degree of difficulty. The Jets defense could cheat up, which is part of why the run game was so hard (the Jets players are also really good). It was kind of like playing the whole game against a red zone defense because 20 yards downfield was irrelevant.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,511
They couldn't take deep chances against NYJ because of the weather, not the score. You saw what happened to Folk's kicks and what happened when Wilson, he of the elite arm strength, tried to push the ball downfield. But that adds to the degree of difficulty. The Jets defense could cheat up, which is part of why the run game was so hard (the Jets players are also really good). It was kind of like playing the whole game against a red zone defense because 20 yards downfield was irrelevant.
I mean nothing happened, I didn't see a single throw that Wilson missed because of the wind... he just sucked, same as always, made bad decisions, airmailed some passes, dirted others, that's just him. I don't think this was anything like the wind game last year, it was a moderate wind, enough to effect FGs some, but not really throws. Mac made a few downfield passes and they generally looked fine despite his subpar arm, I didn't see the wind moving them much. I think there may have been a bit of protecting a weak arm against the wind, but mostly it was playing very low risk.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,249
The sideline throw that almost got picked comes to mind as being knocked down. There was another ball that looked like it changed course, though I am having trouble remembering the exact circumstances. The wind seemed to be more swirling and unpredictable than driving like the Buffalo game last year.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,980
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
Reminds me of someone else early in their career. Who could that be?

Now, I'm not saying Mac Jones will ever be Tom Brady, nobody will, but if Tom Brady doesn't win the Super Bowl in 2001, and if SoSH existed in it's current form, folks would be asking for Tom to be traded for a 1st rounder or something.

Tom Brady in the last 6 games of the season: 61% completion, 1,232 yards, 6td's, 5 int's, 85.7 rating

If you eliminate the 1st game in that stretch, the last 5 games were 61% completion, 974 yards, 2td's, 5ints and a rating of 72.6%.

Tom Brady's rating in the 3 playoff games that year, 77.3% with 1int and 1td.

The difference is Tom Brady and the Pats went 9-0 in that stretch.

Tom Brady was older then than Mac Jones is right now by a few months, IIRC.

Tom, IMO, had slightly better weapons, a better offensive line, and a defense/special teams that scored like 10td's.

Then the defense went otherworldly and they won 2 more. Then the Pats got him some weapons, and Tom went otherworldly.

People can view my thoughts on this however they want, but that's the view I take, having attended almost every single game the Pats played. Mac Jones has a bottom quarter offense around him. If the Pats win games, they are going to win ugly. There are less than a handful of QB's in the NFL right now (Mahomes, Allen maybe....) that could take this Pats offense, and get them scoring points regularly. Add in the fact that you have an offensive "coordinator" that has no idea what he's doing and I'm going to argue until I'm blue that Mac isn't getting a fair shake around here.
They played in different eras.

Just curious, does attending the games instead of watching on TV give your opinion more weight?
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,964
I think it does. I was a season ticket holder for a different team years ago, and I was able to see much more than I can see on TV. In particular, I was able to see the chess match between the defensive secondary and the receivers, which you seldom see in full on TV. It can affect your perception of how well the QB is processing information and making the right decision.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,511
Reminds me of someone else early in their career. Who could that be?

Now, I'm not saying Mac Jones will ever be Tom Brady, nobody will, but if Tom Brady doesn't win the Super Bowl in 2001, and if SoSH existed in it's current form, folks would be asking for Tom to be traded for a 1st rounder or something.

Tom Brady in the last 6 games of the season: 61% completion, 1,232 yards, 6td's, 5 int's, 85.7 rating

If you eliminate the 1st game in that stretch, the last 5 games were 61% completion, 974 yards, 2td's, 5ints and a rating of 72.6%.

Tom Brady's rating in the 3 playoff games that year, 77.3% with 1int and 1td.

The difference is Tom Brady and the Pats went 9-0 in that stretch.

Tom Brady was older then than Mac Jones is right now by a few months, IIRC.

Tom, IMO, had slightly better weapons, a better offensive line, and a defense/special teams that scored like 10td's.

Then the defense went otherworldly and they won 2 more. Then the Pats got him some weapons, and Tom went otherworldly.

People can view my thoughts on this however they want, but that's the view I take, having attended almost every single game the Pats played. Mac Jones has a bottom quarter offense around him. If the Pats win games, they are going to win ugly. There are less than a handful of QB's in the NFL right now (Mahomes, Allen maybe....) that could take this Pats offense, and get them scoring points regularly. Add in the fact that you have an offensive "coordinator" that has no idea what he's doing and I'm going to argue until I'm blue that Mac isn't getting a fair shake around here.
I completely disagree with this btw, I think there are at least a dozen, probably more QBs who would have put up significantly more points with this offense than Mac. In part because Mac is exactly the type of QB who relies most on top end line play. Honestly I think the number of starting QBs who would be worse than Mac in this offense is pretty short. Not all of them are even better QBs than Mac, they just have traits that help them more behind a bad line than Mac.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,348
They played in different eras.

Just curious, does attending the games instead of watching on TV give your opinion more weight?
And those stats that Brady put up in those 9 games were bad, even for that era, no? If we're adding up good games/bad games for Mac based on stats, let's talk about Tom that year. He started 17 games. In 4 of those games, he had 12td's and 0 ints. In the other 13 games, he had 7td's and 13 interceptions. Is that good for the "era" or just bad altogether?

If the tuck rule is called the other way, is SoSH clamoring for Tom Brady or Drew Bledsoe to start in 2002? In 2000, folks were screaming for Michael Bishop.

And yes, attending the games has a big effect on how I view the games in real time. The biggest reason is the weather, but the ability to see the entire field prior to the invention of, or the release of the all-22 film used to make a huge difference as well. Watching that game against the Jets on television 2 weeks ago (and I watch most of the game via DVR after i get home) is a completely different world than seeing and feeling what these guys are on the field. It's one of the reasons I've hammered the weather in these threads for almost 20 years. Even from play to play in the stadium, you can feel the wind gusts. Nick Folk's kick would have easily cleared the cross bar in that game had a massive gust not come through the open end, and pushed the kick almost straight up in the air. He was making that kick in pre-game by 5 yards.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,348
I think it does. I was a season ticket holder for a different team years ago, and I was able to see much more than I can see on TV. In particular, I was able to see the chess match between the defensive secondary and the receivers, which you seldom see in full on TV. It can affect your perception of how well the QB is processing information and making the right decision.
From my seats, 2 of which are 6 rows from the field, and 2 of which are 21st row (30 yard line, visitor side), you can see everything. The speed of the game, the coaches talking to specific players on the sidelines, the substitution patters, who is limping/grimacing. It's just such a completely different experience. That's why when watching some of these other offenses come into Gillette and seeing them run routes, or get open, you can't help but go "WTF, they aren't even playing the same sport as most of our receivers." Guys like Hill, Waddle, Diggs, Kelce, (guys like Marvin Harrison back in the day) etc. are just complete and total game changers. The amount of attention the defense has to put on them completely changes what a coach can do with the other 9-10 defenders. It completely changes where the QB is looking from play to play.

We also had a bird's eye view for 20 years of the greatest coach and the greatest QB of all time, and got to compare them in real time to what we saw from opponents. If I was sitting at home watching the Red Zone channel, focusing on my fantasy lineup in one eye, there's no fucking way I'd know half of what I do about the game, and I played football through high school.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,348
I completely disagree with this btw, I think there are at least a dozen, probably more QBs who would have put up significantly more points with this offense than Mac. In part because Mac is exactly the type of QB who relies most on top end line play. Honestly I think the number of starting QBs who would be worse than Mac in this offense is pretty short. Not all of them are even better QBs than Mac, they just have traits that help them more behind a bad line than Mac.
Guys like Hurts or Justin Fields, maybe?

I suppose, if you believe that BB and Patricia are going to let their young QB go out and freelance and run when they want. Guys like Josh Allen and Justin Herbert who look to throw first, and can run when it breaks down, absolutely. I don't see guys like Jimmy G., Tua, Geno Smith doing much better. I think folks are seriously overestimating how many really good QB's are in this NFL. Andy Dalton is currently 10th in the NFL in passer rating. Trevor Lawrence is 11th. It's not a great crop, and if you take away the weapons guys have and leave them with Jakobi Meyers as their #1, an offensive line that completely whiffs on every 3rd play, and a coordinator that sucks ass, it's a very, very tall task.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,511
Guys like Hurts or Justin Fields, maybe?

I suppose, if you believe that BB and Patricia are going to let their young QB go out and freelance and run when they want. Guys like Josh Allen and Justin Herbert who look to throw first, and can run when it breaks down, absolutely. I don't see guys like Jimmy G., Tua, Geno Smith doing much better. I think folks are seriously overestimating how many really good QB's are in this NFL. Andy Dalton is currently 10th in the NFL in passer rating. Trevor Lawrence is 11th. It's not a great crop, and if you take away the weapons guys have and leave them with Jakobi Meyers as their #1, an offensive line that completely whiffs on every 3rd play, and a coordinator that sucks ass, it's a very, very tall task.
Hurts, Rodgers, Allen, Herbert, Lawrence, Mahomes, Burrow, Brady, Lamar, Kyler, Prescott, Tannehill I think are definites. I'd add Fields, Goff, Geno, Jimmy G, Jones, Tua, Carr to the maybe pile. Some of those guys are already playing better with worse Lines or Passcatching options (some have both). Mac has been bad with surrounding talent that ranges from middle of the pack to below average.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,348
Hurts, Rodgers, Allen, Herbert, Lawrence, Mahomes, Burrow, Brady, Lamar, Kyler, Prescott, Tannehill I think are definites. I'd add Fields, Goff, Geno, Jimmy G, Jones, Tua, Carr to the maybe pile. Some of those guys are already playing better with worse Lines or Passcatching options (some have both). Mac has been bad with surrounding talent that ranges from middle of the pack to below average.
I would grant you Hurts (if they let him run), Allen, Herbert, Mahomes, Burrow, Carr and probably Lamar. The rest, I just don't see it, except maybe Rodgers given who he is, but damn, he's looked terrible with, I would argue, very slightly better weapons and a better line than what he'd have here.

I can't get on board with the rest as being automatically better, by any stretch. Lawrence is playing for a coach/off. coordinator with years of working together, and he's starting to round into form, with a good group of guys and a fantastic line in front of him, playing in good weather. Etienne, Kirk, Jones, Jones, Engram is a very good group if you got time.

Tua, a lifetime sub 90 rating guy, gets weapons, a pretty favorable schedule and he's lighting it up. I saw nothing in his first 2 years that would have led me to believe he'd be anything without the group he's got around him now (and the coaching staff again). Shit, I'll bet it would have been very questionable if anyone in Boston would have traded Mac straight up for Tua after last season. What changed?

Likewise, Geno Smith. Geno has a career QB rating of under 85, even though he's well over 100 in his last 14 starts (in a 45 start career including those 14). Again, what changed?

Kyler has been as bad, if not worse, all year as Mac. Maybe it's because Hopkins was suspended, and Hollywood got hurt. Now, they're back and he'll get better. I'd love to see Kyler playing up here in New England on a weekly basis. He'd get destroyed in this division, and in this weather.

Everyone knows I'm a huge Dak fan, and think he gets nowhere near the love he should as a QB, but Dak has always had better weapons then what he would have here, and in his 32 career starts outdoors, he's 18-14, with a passer rating of 93.9 and a completion % that is sub 65.

Wasn't Goff just here recently? You think he'd be better than Mac? Really? Jimmy G. has, IMO, the best offensive weapons, and offensive coaching staff in the NFL around him and still loses games to Denver and Atlanta. I think Daniel Jones would be more successful here than he would be.

Tom Brady, Tom Brady would be fucking breaking guys heads on the sidelines if he was playing with this team around him. IMO, the main reason Tom Brady isn't here anymore is because the Pats couldn't give him any weapons. If Tom Brady's TB receivers were in Foxboro when Tom Brady was getting ready to leave, he'd be the QB of the Pats right now.

You just named what, 19 guys, and maybe 4-5 of them are playing with worse pass catchers around them than Mac is right now. And some of them are playing even worse than Mac is, like Goff. None of them, besides Rodgers and Allen play in anything comparable to the weather we have here, and none of them are playing in a worse situation from a coaching standpoint than Mac is, except maybe Dak, because Dallas' coaching always sucks.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,511
I would grant you Hurts (if they let him run), Allen, Herbert, Mahomes, Burrow, Carr and probably Lamar. The rest, I just don't see it, except maybe Rodgers given who he is, but damn, he's looked terrible with, I would argue, very slightly better weapons and a better line than what he'd have here.

I can't get on board with the rest as being automatically better, by any stretch. Lawrence is playing for a coach/off. coordinator with years of working together, and he's starting to round into form, with a good group of guys and a fantastic line in front of him, playing in good weather. Etienne, Kirk, Jones, Jones, Engram is a very good group if you got time.

Tua, a lifetime sub 90 rating guy, gets weapons, a pretty favorable schedule and he's lighting it up. I saw nothing in his first 2 years that would have led me to believe he'd be anything without the group he's got around him now (and the coaching staff again). Shit, I'll bet it would have been very questionable if anyone in Boston would have traded Mac straight up for Tua after last season. What changed?

Likewise, Geno Smith. Geno has a career QB rating of under 85, even though he's well over 100 in his last 14 starts (in a 45 start career including those 14). Again, what changed?

Kyler has been as bad, if not worse, all year as Mac. Maybe it's because Hopkins was suspended, and Hollywood got hurt. Now, they're back and he'll get better. I'd love to see Kyler playing up here in New England on a weekly basis. He'd get destroyed in this division, and in this weather.

Everyone knows I'm a huge Dak fan, and think he gets nowhere near the love he should as a QB, but Dak has always had better weapons then what he would have here, and in his 32 career starts outdoors, he's 18-14, with a passer rating of 93.9 and a completion % that is sub 65.

Wasn't Goff just here recently? You think he'd be better than Mac? Really? Jimmy G. has, IMO, the best offensive weapons, and offensive coaching staff in the NFL around him and still loses games to Denver and Atlanta. I think Daniel Jones would be more successful here than he would be.

Tom Brady, Tom Brady would be fucking breaking guys heads on the sidelines if he was playing with this team around him. IMO, the main reason Tom Brady isn't here anymore is because the Pats couldn't give him any weapons. If Tom Brady's TB receivers were in Foxboro when Tom Brady was getting ready to leave, he'd be the QB of the Pats right now.

You just named what, 19 guys, and maybe 4-5 of them are playing with worse pass catchers around them than Mac is right now. And some of them are playing even worse than Mac is, like Goff. None of them, besides Rodgers and Allen play in anything comparable to the weather we have here, and none of them are playing in a worse situation from a coaching standpoint than Mac is, except maybe Dak, because Dallas' coaching always sucks.
I mean... Mac Jones isn't good. All of the guys you pick at... are just as skilled as Mac if not more, and most are more mobile. You could flip all those arguments and say... "Mac Jones was pretty good last year with a top O-line and running game with a solid WR corps. What is the evidence that Mac Jones is better than basically anyone listed.

As to passcatchers... you're delusional I'm sorry. This is a team loaded with guys who have recently been #2 or #3 options for other teams, yes they don't have some top end elite #1 WR, but they have middle class talent and depth. The Patriots had plenty of worse passcatching groups in the SB years.

Edit- I mean, you pick JAX as an example of better weapons? They have a much worse backfield (they were playing Robinson major downs half the year and Rham is better than Ettiene so far), Engram has nowhere near the past performance of Henry, he's much closer to Jonnu, and their WRs are a bunch of guys who were #2/3 on other teams... maybe Kirk is better than Jakobi (very different players hard to say), but and aging Jones would not have been considered by anyone as on the level of Parker even a year ago, he was a FA with Agholor and considered maybe a bit better. That skill group is definitely not better than ours.
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,059
around the way
I think it does. I was a season ticket holder for a different team years ago, and I was able to see much more than I can see on TV. In particular, I was able to see the chess match between the defensive secondary and the receivers, which you seldom see in full on TV. It can affect your perception of how well the QB is processing information and making the right decision.
I'm never going to say that being in person gives an overall poster more weight. But damn, you can see so much more. It's honestly ridiculous. Not sure if "all 22" covers the whole field like seeing it in person does...maybe it does. But being able to watch the line and the back of the secondary at the same time definitely gives one a perspective that's completely not possible on the TV feed.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,072
Philly
Sitting that close to the field do you actually see enough? I have tickets 17 rows up at SMU and sometimes it gets hard to see the entire field from there especially when it gets close to either end zone or it is a deep pass to the opposite sideline. I get most of my Patriots film opinion from watching plays a few times in all-22. Sometimes my takes change post-game too. Reviewing a game takes like 3 hours at a minimum. I tend to regret it when I have a take on a play I didn't review like the Agholor 4th down miss (on review I did not remember it correctly). I would rather have their TEs and WRs vs the Jaguars. And you're dunking on the Cowboy's coaching? HC? Fine. OC this year? I don't think that's fair and even last year while he had some issues they still had one of the top offenses in the NFL. I just feel like this has gone off the rails a little. The Patriots have a better pass top to bottom catching group than the Jags, Texans, Titans, Ravens, Broncos, Saints, Giants, Bears, and Packers.
Around the same level as or better: Steelers, (Ravens - not sure where they are and mentioned them above?), Rams?
9-11 teams they are either better than or close to. It's not great but they are not that bad. They are an average to a slightly below average receiving room that has more middle of the road options vs stars.

Yes the all-22 shows you all guys at once on one view (you get two views). You get all-22 guys zoomed out from basically a sky cam. The other view shows you just the Off/Def line areas and then zooms out a little and then in towards where the ball is thrown if thrown.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,348
Besides the Jets game, have the Pats had bad weather this year?
Weather has actually been ok this year so far in Foxboro. The Jets game notwithstanding. By the way, PFR's weather is shit. I think they show that game as having a 2mph wind.

We were supposed to have rain for the Bears Monday night game, but it cleared out a couple hours before game time. Was just pretty raw.

Foxboro is one of the windiest stadiums in the league though, so even on a good day, with the way the stadium is set up, you're usually looking at 10-15mph winds.

if Miami and the Pats both have something to play for on New Year's Day, the weather could be a huge factor, and I'm hoping for a blizzard on Xmas Eve against Cinci.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,511
Sitting that close to the field do you actually see enough? I have tickets 17 rows up at SMU and sometimes it gets hard to see the entire field from there especially when it gets close to either end zone or it is a deep pass to the opposite sideline. I get most of my Patriots film opinion from watching plays a few times in all-22. Sometimes my takes change post-game too. Reviewing a game takes like 3 hours at a minimum. I tend to regret it when I have a take on a play I didn't review like the Agholor 4th down miss (on review I did not remember it correctly). I would rather have their TEs and WRs vs the Jaguars. And you're dunking on the Cowboy's coaching? HC? Fine. OC this year? I don't think that's fair and even last year while he had some issues they still had one of the top offenses in the NFL. I just feel like this has gone off the rails a little. The Patriots have a better pass top to bottom catching group than the Jags, Texans, Titans, Ravens, Broncos, Saints, Giants, Bears, and Packers.
Around the same level as or better: Steelers, (Ravens - not sure where they are and mentioned them above?), Rams?
9-11 teams they are either better than or close to. It's not great but they are not that bad. They are an average to a slightly below average receiving room that has more middle of the road options vs stars.

Yes the all-22 shows you all guys at once on one view (you get two views). You get all-22 guys zoomed out from basically a sky cam. The other view shows you just the Off/Def line areas and then zooms out a little and then in towards where the ball is thrown if thrown.
yeah, I was going to say, All-22 is definitely better for seeing everything than just about any seat at a game, it's the same reason the sidelines need the guys and pictures from the booth, the angles are all wrong to:
1. see everything
2. gauge depth/distance correctly.

It FEELS like you're seeing way more, but really you're just able to choose what to look at when you're at the game, you're not seeing more than the TV cameras, you're just playing director, so you get to choose to focus on things the TV viewer doesn't see. However the all-22 will show you stuff you can't possibly see from the field.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,348
Edit- I mean, you pick JAX as an example of better weapons? They have a much worse backfield (they were playing Robinson major downs half the year and Rham is better than Ettiene so far), Engram has nowhere near the past performance of Henry, he's much closer to Jonnu, and their WRs are a bunch of guys who were #2/3 on other teams... maybe Kirk is better than Jakobi (very different players hard to say), but and aging Jones would not have been considered by anyone as on the level of Parker even a year ago, he was a FA with Agholor and considered maybe a bit better. That skill group is definitely not better than ours.
Definitely not better? You guys seem to have an incredibly high opinion of Jakobi Meyers. I like Meyers, but he is, without a doubt, one of the 2-3 worst #1 receivers in the NFL. Period. And Parker, the guy with 21 catches this season and 5 interceptions on balls thrown his way? What are we talking about? Christian Kirk is on pace for like 85 catches, over 1,100 yards and 10td's. Etienne was returning from a season ending injury last year, so they were easing him back in, which is the only reason Robinson was seeing touches. When they handed him the keys, he went for over 100 scrimmage yards in 5 consecutive games, and is averaging 5.5ypc. When one of our receivers, any one of them, shows up the way Zay Jones (who has more catches on the season than Jakobi Meyers this season), let me know. Marvin Jones is exactly what everyone hoped Nelson Agholor would be.

Are we also just going to ignore the offensive line and the coaching situation in each place?
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,348
As to passcatchers... you're delusional I'm sorry. This is a team loaded with guys who have recently been #2 or #3 options for other teams, yes they don't have some top end elite #1 WR, but they have middle class talent and depth. The Patriots had plenty of worse passcatching groups in the SB years.
The Pats have never had a worse pass catching group than the one they have now, unless you ignore the tight ends and the running backs. Maybe 2001 was worse. They also had the greatest QB of all time, a litany of great offensive coordinators and arguably the greatest offensive line coach ever.

This team has none of that, except maybe Rhamondre catching the ball out of the backfield, well, in the backfield. And I was a guy that loved the Jonnu Smith signing, the bloom is off that rose.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,511
Definitely not better? You guys seem to have an incredibly high opinion of Jakobi Meyers. I like Meyers, but he is, without a doubt, one of the 2-3 worst #1 receivers in the NFL. Period. And Parker, the guy with 21 catches this season and 5 interceptions on balls thrown his way? What are we talking about? Christian Kirk is on pace for like 85 catches, over 1,100 yards and 10td's. Etienne was returning from a season ending injury last year, so they were easing him back in, which is the only reason Robinson was seeing touches. When they handed him the keys, he went for over 100 scrimmage yards in 5 consecutive games, and is averaging 5.5ypc. When one of our receivers, any one of them, shows up the way Zay Jones (who has more catches on the season than Jakobi Meyers this season), let me know. Marvin Jones is exactly what everyone hoped Nelson Agholor would be.

Are we also just going to ignore the offensive line and the coaching situation in each place?
Why are we quoting the results guys have with their QBs in determining whether they are helping their QBs? That's counter-productive, and tells us nothing about their talent. Particularly when you're not looking at volume. DaVante Parker leads the league in yards per target for example. Agholor, Meyers and Henry also in the top 25.

There is one thing that Kirk has been better than Jakobi at this year..... getting a lot more targets, Meyers catches more of his targets for more yards, he just got less targets, in large part because he started 3 fewer games.
JAX throws a lot, in part because they have a bad defense, in part because they trust their QB. Because they throw a lot more, their raw receiving numbers look better. Under the hood though... the Patriots receiving corps (and TEs) look a lot better in terms of things like averages per target. If someone wants to find and pull the separation numbers I bet those are good too (Jakobi killed at that last year).