sb1
PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2013
- Messages
- 34,832
- Reaction score
- 39,186
We have a meaningful sample size with Mac with McDaniels last season. He was good then and isn’t now. So what changed?The Mac guys criticize the offensive coaching and use it as an explanation for Mac’s poor play - telling us he deserves more time to improve his play with better coaching - but simultaneously tell us that Zappe’s 2nd half against Chicago (under the same coaches, btw) fundamentally disqualifies him from ever being a successful NFL QB. (Which is a really dumb opinion, btw, that a single half of struggles - as a rookie no less - means a player cannot be successful in the future).
Many people prefer one guy over the other and that leads to inconsistent analysis of the evidence/context based on that bias.
I don’t mind people having their guy and leaning one way or the other. What I don’t like is when folks discuss this situation in absolutes, particularly when predicting how this will play out in the future.
The sample size we have for Zappe is 1 game vs GB where he was a game manager and nothing more…threw maybe 3 passes past the LOS, 2 decent but overhyped games vs the Lions and Browns- nothing that guys like Cooper Rush and Mike White haven’t done- and 1 awful game vs the Bears where they seemed to have figured him out and therefore was benched. So Mac with the much more significant sample size where he was good gets the benefit of the doubt imo and he should.
I get the sentiment that we don’t like Mac and his game and/or we don't think he's the guy. That doesn’t mean Zappe is good but at least Zappe will get another chance to compete for the job in camp.
Last edited: