Game Day Thread Official Post Game Thread- Bucs beat the Pats

[Rob0729]

All the reason I think Bill should go and get Collins. His speed would help a lot because right now our LBs are slow overall.

The Pats need a run stuffing LB more than a fast LB. It would be best to get a fast run stuffing LB.

 

[ashley]

Final thoughts from Reiss, good read..some overview includeS possibly looking at brining back Rex, O-line issues, Owenu was benched, Andrews needs to be better as does the whole group. Patriots are close to winning these games.

 

[sb1]

Final thoughts from Reiss, good read..some overview includeS possibly looking at brining back Rex, O-line issues, Owenu was benched, Andrews needs to be better as does the whole group. Patriots are close to winning these games.

Re Reiss's last point - no there's no such potential. I'm not seeing much of a parallel between this game and the Rams regular season game in 2001. The Pats were a team on the rise in 2001 even before that game. The 2021 Pats are not on the rise, they're a team trying to figure out what they are after Brady left coming off a losing season and probably on their way to another one, and at least a year or two away from even being worth mentioning in the same sentence as a playoff contender.

The GSOT Rams gave the 2001 Pats their best shot and the Pats not only took it well but punched right back. And probably would have beaten them if Smith didn't fumble. There's a reason why Martz said what he said about them after the game and it turns out he was right. The game on Sunday only showed the Pats offense is not good enough right now to take advantage of a crippled Bucs secondary and shorthanded Bucs offense and a QB who played a C+ game.

We don't even know if Mac is the QB of the future yet. FWIW Mac supposedly played a "great game" on Sunday and yet his QBR was lower than Brady's who people think struggled. Go figure.

Lots of losing teams can say they are "close". That's why they're losing teams they aren't good enough to get over the hump.

 

[PScottman]

I am a Pats fan and, although I love Brady, I am not a Bucs fan.

I didn't follow Clemens or the Blue Jays (or Yankees or Astros) when he left. I didn't follow Ray Bourque or the Avalanche when he left. I'm not following Brady or the Bucs because he left. For some it is the laundry and the name on the front versus the one on the back.

When David Stern and his ilk veered fandom away from teams and toward star players through targeted advertising and marketing, during the Bird/Magic era especially, that aspect of fandom (cheering for a specific player versus an entire team) went from fringe to mainstream. It has grown exponentially since for myriad reasons (generational talents such as Jordan/Lebron, Brady, etc; fantasy football, etc)

Doesnt mean I don't appreciate and as a fan owe Brady the utmost respect and thanks for what he did for the fans (and the team) while he was here, but that likewise doesn't obligate me to continue the worship now that he's exercised his choice to play elsewhere as others have before.

 

[ashley]

probably on their way to another one, and at least a year or two away from even being worth mentioning in the same sentence as a playoff contender.

I don't think we're a year or two away...I think we're pretty close...again you know I'm optimistic, but we're a bounce or two away from being 3-1.

Where did you see Mac's qb rating? Last one I saw his was at 107 and Brady was at 70

 

[sb1]

I don't think we're a year or two away...I think we're pretty close...again you know I'm optimistic, but we're a bounce or two away from being 3-1.

Where did you see Mac's qb rating? Last one I saw his was at 107 and Brady was at 70

Yeah not his passer rating I mean his QBR. 50 means an average performance.

How is Total QBR calculated? We explain our quarterback rating

Although not perfect, the metric incorporates all of a quarterback's contributions. Check out what goes into the computations.

www.espn.com

I think we are better than last year - but not "all the way" better if you know what i mean. Still have needs to address on both sides of the ball before we're back in contention imo.

FWIW the 2000 Pats had a 5-11 record... but they lost 9 of those games by no more than 1 score. That's what I mean by losing teams and close games. Doesn't mean they're a good team it means they're not good enough to turn those close losses into wins.

 

[Sicilian]

I don't think we're a year or two away...I think we're pretty close...again you know I'm optimistic, but we're a bounce or two away from being 3-1.

Where did you see Mac's qb rating? Last one I saw his was at 107 and Brady was at 70

QBR (not to be confused with QB Rating... it's stupid that we have both and THAT'S how we're supposed to distinguish them), is the ESPN invented rating, which includes sacks. So Brady beat him 55 to 46 roughly I think because of the sacks. I see some logic in that, because part of Brady's strength is quick release and the bottomless pit of football knowledge, and a rookie is going to lose on that front every time. But I'm not ready to pin all of Mac's sacks on him.

 

[ashley]

Re Reiss's last point - no there's no such potential. I'm not seeing much of a parallel between this game and the Rams regular season game in 2001. The Pats were a team on the rise in 2001 even before that game. The 2021 Pats are not on the rise, they're a team trying to figure out what they are after Brady left coming off a losing season and probably on their way to another one, and at least a year or two away from even being worth mentioning in the same sentence as a playoff contender.

The GSOT Rams gave the 2001 Pats their best shot and the Pats not only took it well but punched right back. And probably would have beaten them if Smith didn't fumble. There's a reason why Martz said what he said about them after the game and it turns out he was right. The game on Sunday only showed the Pats offense is not good enough right now to take advantage of a crippled Bucs secondary and shorthanded Bucs offense and a QB who played a C+ game.

We don't even know if Mac is the QB of the future yet. FWIW Mac supposedly played a "great game" on Sunday and yet his QBR was lower than Brady's who people think struggled. Go figure.

Lots of losing teams can say they are "close". That's why they're losing teams they aren't good enough to get over the hump.

Mac had a better QB rating than jones last week. Please see below:

Tom Brady, QB​

TB​

W 19-17 at NE​

22

43

269

0

0

1

0

70.8

Mac Jones, QB​

NE​

L 19-17 vs. TB​

31

40

275

2

1

4

0

101.6

 

[ashley]

QBR (not to be confused with QB Rating... it's stupid that we have both and THAT'S how we're supposed to distinguish them), is the ESPN invented rating, which includes sacks. So Brady beat him 55 to 46 roughly I think because of the sacks. I see some logic in that, because part of Brady's strength is quick release and the bottomless pit of football knowledge, and a rookie is going to lose on that front every time. But I'm not ready to pin all of Mac's sacks on him.

Thanks, I just found the actual rating and posted it. Mac had the higher rating.

 

[ashley]

Yeah not his passer rating I mean his QBR. 50 means an average performance.

How is Total QBR calculated? We explain our quarterback rating

Although not perfect, the metric incorporates all of a quarterback's contributions. Check out what goes into the computations.

www.espn.com

View attachment 36309

I think we are better than last year - but not "all the way" better if you know what i mean. Still have needs to address on both sides of the ball before we're back in contention imo.

FWIW the 2000 Pats had a 5-11 record... but they lost 9 of those games by no more than 1 score. That's what I mean by losing teams and close games. Doesn't mean they're a good team it means they're not good enough to turn those close losses into wins.

Ok, thanks for the clarification SB.

 

[sb1]

Thanks, I just fosaund the actual rating and posted it. Mac had the higher rating.

Yeah that's the passer rating, I meant QBR. Passer rating doesn't penalize a QB for taking sacks and rewards QBs for "playing it safe".

 

[masterbouncer]

QBR (not to be confused with QB Rating... it's stupid that we have both and THAT'S how we're supposed to distinguish them), is the ESPN invented rating, which includes sacks. So Brady beat him 55 to 46 roughly I think because of the sacks. I see some logic in that, because part of Brady's strength is quick release and the bottomless pit of football knowledge, and a rookie is going to lose on that front every time. But I'm not ready to pin all of Mac's sacks on him.

Not as long as Wynn and Herron are your Tackles, even Brady would be sacked a thousend times with that poor Tackle play, can they get their **** together now?

Oline and RBs supposed to be the best part of the roster, now its actually the worst part....by far

 

[venecol]

Van Noy sure has changed since coming back from MIA. LOL



Edit: For context, see Post #575

 

[venecol]

All the reason I think Bill should go and get Collins. His speed would help a lot because right now our LBs are slow overall.

Is Collins still fast? He's 32. Just wondering - haven't watched him since he left.

Not sure, but Judon (who's been great), Hightower, and Van Noy don't have great speed.

LMAO

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Mac had a better QB rating than jones last week. Please see below:

Tom Brady, QB​

TB​

W 19-17 at NE​

22

43

269

0

0

1

0

70.8

Mac Jones, QB​

NE​

L 19-17 vs. TB​

31

40

275

2

1

4

0

101.6

Yeah, it's clear Mac outplayed Brady...just came up a bit short on the scoreboard. Plus Mac doesn't have pro bowlers and HOFers surrounding him. In the grand scheme of things, the loss probably won't matter much.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Final thoughts from Reiss, good read..some overview includeS possibly looking at brining back Rex, O-line issues, Owenu was benched, Andrews needs to be better as does the whole group. Patriots are close to winning these games.

Reiss isn’t getting that thought about Burkhead out of thin air. He’s too well connected. Someone floated it to him. And that could be the Zolak rumor from last week, he heard it too. Pats are thinking about it and haven’t decided to pull the trigger yet.

 

[Santi]

NextGen says there was a 45% probability for Folk. Going on 4th and 3 seems to be some weird ex post facto consensus "go for it" conclusion... after the game. (see below.)

You go for it and don't make it, then what? Game over man. which is more likely, the 46% play (I actually dont believe that), or the 4-and-3 play? Not 4th and inches mind you, 4th and 3 - NextGen actually says 4th and 4.4 "according to ball-tracking data".

Let's factor in the fact that IF we had 1 positive yard rushing by then, the 3 we needed to pick up would be triple our total on the day. But we didn't, of course. We totaled -1 yard rushing.

No matter. We could then pass it on 4th and 3, with the game on the line, and the opponent knowing we were passing.

NextGen stats says
Conversion probability:

• Folk had a 45.1 percent chance of making a 56-yard field goal, according to our field-goal probability model, which takes into account real-time weather and humidity data.
• If the Patriots had gone for it -- with 4.4 yards to go, as measured by ball-tracking data -- their chances of converting were 52.3 percent.

Week 4's biggest decisions: Bill Belichick hurt Patriots' chances; Colts rewarded for boldness

Should Bill Belichick have been more aggressive on fourth down in the Patriots' loss to Tom Brady and the Bucs? The NGS team breaks down Week 4's biggest decisions.

www.nfl.com

My quibble is, I don't know what O-line their software was plugging in to give us a 52 percent chance of picking up the 4.4 yards (?!!)

Mac was hot at that point, and perhaps they're factoring that in, but just no. What it looks like to me, frankly, is just plugging in a reasonable 4th down percentage, not factoring in that there was no running game, reducing the play to a single dimension.

(I dunno, I wake up to see that guys like NextGen are trying to beat this woulda coulda shoulda drum... I guess from all the gameday/post-gameday comments, it's the natural conclusion. "I woulda shoulda coulda called X because the Pats called Y and it didn't work." I am surprised NextGen's "in on it," because I just don't believe the Pats are some sort of lock to make that conversion.

For me it was all about not giving Tampa a chance with the ball, the only option to do that was go for it.

I think the only way we stood a chance of winning the game was making that first down.

 

[sb1]

Ok, thanks for the clarification SB.

No problem Neither are perfect though - case in point

 

[SVN]

just saw this. thought it was pretty cool

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Apparently ESPN made up QBR in 2011, or in ESPN parlance, between manufactured stories to dock the Patriots draft picks with. Let me guess: it conclusively established that Manning was better than Brady too. Not that the "real" rating is much better, although it has the advantage of already being known.

I unfortunately have to make do with stat lines a lot more nowadays, and I'm accutely aware that If he's getting time and he's sacked, that's different from o-line faultable sacs. If a QB has shots at 2 hail maries, makes one to set up a game-winning run and throws an int. at the end of the previous half, that will show up as good yardage, but high percentage of interceptions... with no payoff in terms of TDs. And as much as we like to denigrate it, you can march up and down a field 5 to 10 yards at a time with impunity, if your passing game is small ball and therefore penalized by formulas and posters who need to valorize the long ball. Fine. But you complete 19 of them in a row, that's good, not bad. Not to mention being able to sub in a passing game for a short run game when you get your team to this point, somehow, in the run department.

It's fun to argue stats, but they're an abstraction from reality. "Ratings" are a second order of abstraction, a formula applied to stats. Then to decide you have another rating because you just don't like the previous one... and list them both...? Well if your new one's so much better, what's the point??? Just stop it.

Also, get off my lawn.