Mayo Made The Right Call, The Only Call - Brissett over Maye

[Pape]

Once Bobby K seesm those blue seats without butt's in them... expect something to change... lol

when the people in the red seats stop paying, then he will start worrying.

 

[maust]

He's a nice guy.. so I will wish him to just suck!

As a Pats fan I wish for him to excel. In fact I hope he has the best year of any QB in the history of the game. Not betting on it but hell, wishes don't cost a dime.

 

[Real fan 02]

when the people in the red seats stop paying, then he will start worrying.

Ahhhh... very true my friend! Last season was an introduction to it. He's instrumental in the TV deals for the league. His team got phased out. As fan.. I'm happy with 1pm games..

 

[maust]

lol, "detailed analysis" ... Man, you talk so much garbage couched in the guise of "studies" and "analysis".

Brady sat
Montana sat
Mahomes sat
McNabb sat
Rodgers sat
Brees sat
Warner sat
Favre sat
Bradshaw sat
Warner sat
Rivers sat
hell even Roger Staubach sat

And based on how pmannings rookie season went, he should have sat for a spell.

Where do you get these "detailed" studies from? Exponent? Would be my guess.

Not every opinion needs to be derived from a position of authority. Sometimes you can look at a situation and say "yeah that makes sense" based on your own knowledge, thoughts and ideas.

The Patriots want to bring Maye along at a slow(er) pace. And for them, that's the right decision.

Maye will get his opportunity. It just isn't going to happen in game 1, unless Jacoby gets jacked. Which unfortunately is a real possibility.

Warner must have sat a lot for you to list him twice.

 

[Real fan 02]

As a Pats fan I wish for him to excel. In fact I hope he has the best year any QB in the history of the game. Not betting on it but hell, wishes don't cost a dime.

Good point there. Wishes are free. On the optimistic side for Brissett if he plays well then that would mean the teams competitive and more so winning. He would see a nice contract for himself in FA.. say a geno Smith type season. He could get himself a 100 million from someone.

 

[KCSVEN]

lol, "detailed analysis" ... Man, you talk so much garbage couched in the guise of "studies" and "analysis".

Brady sat
Montana sat
Mahomes sat
McNabb sat
Rodgers sat
Brees sat
Warner sat
Favre sat
Bradshaw sat
Warner sat
Rivers sat
hell even Roger Staubach sat

And based on how pmannings rookie season went, he should have sat for a spell.

Where do you get these "detailed" studies from? Exponent? Would be my guess.

Not every opinion needs to be derived from a position of authority. Sometimes you can look at a situation and say "yeah that makes sense" based on your own knowledge, thoughts and ideas.

The Patriots want to bring Maye along at a slow(er) pace. And for them, that's the right decision.

Maye will get his opportunity. It just isn't going to happen in game 1, unless Jacoby gets jacked. Which unfortunately is a real possibility.

You've read the analysis?
You know you could list 10 times that amount that sat and failed right?
And absolutely zero of those people have proven to be failures by playing right away!
Apparently you think random names is some type of analysis, pointless argument since you made up your mind and then decided to only look up data to support you and ignore the rest, good confirmation bias you have!
Doesn’t change the facts tho, your wrong if you weigh everything, no other conclusion possible if you’re not biased

 

[Pape]

Warner must have sat a lot for you to list him twice.

or i just made a mistake. it happens. I'll survive.

Unlike others, I am far from perfect.

 

[Pape]

You've read the analysis?

no, have no clue what you are talking about because you never cite those studies in the representative post. it may come as a shock to you, but i don't read every post you make. you want to refer to a study or a "detailed analysis" drop in a link.

and yeah, I could also list a dozen players who started right away and failed.

 

[maust]

Unlike others, I am far from perfect.

What have my inlaws got to do with it?

 

[Pape]

What have my inlaws got to do with it?

that wasn't really directed at you.

my bad. sincere apologies if it was taken that way.

 

[maust]

that wasn't really directed at you.

my bad. sincere apologies if it was taken that way.

My man, that never entered my thoughts. I am deeply aware of how flawed I am and have no trouble laughing at myself over it. Not to worry though, should I ever forget the aforementioned inlaws would be all too happy to remind me.

 

[Ring 6]

He just turned 22…he has his whole life to have near-death experiences. Their is no rush.

So let’s give all the rookies the year off, football is a violent game.

 

[KCSVEN]

no, have no clue what you are talking about because you never cite those studies in the representative post. it may come as a shock to you, but i don't read every post you make. you want to refer to a study or a "detailed analysis" drop in a link.

and yeah, I could also list a dozen players who started right away and failed.

I refuse to do your research for you. If your unwilling to Google to find the 2 studies then you clearly did not do enough work on this to have a opinion that is worthy of rebuttal.

It's not rocket science:
2 separate people set out to analyze whether it is better to sit or play a QB. Analyzing 20 years of data they both, separately, concluded it is best to start from day 1. One of them went further and analyzed it to conclude top 10 drafted QB's on bad teams outperform any of the other QB's when starting from day 1.
Unless you can find some analyses or willing to do one then based on the analysis done and the details behind it the evidence clearly supports that position. I looked for the same detailed studies that would conclude otherwise, could not find them, I am unwilling to do that research myself. I will rely on the pretty thorough analyses until shown something else. Of course, this is not meant to say you can't sit or you have to start or all starters right way succeed etc. It just concludes the odds say start right away. So, NOBODY can say history, or these examples prove otherwise because they are not comparing to all samples. Until otherwise shown, the best evidence to date concludes start top rookie QB's from Day 1 for best results.

Then, of course, you move onto what about Maye in particular? He's compared to Herbert and Allen, both started as 22 year old rookies a large number of games both are recognized today as top NFL QB's. Herbert mirrors Maye to a T. Same criticisms Maye gets, Herbert got, same bad team and bad line, Herbert was meant to sit for most of the season as was not ready and a journeyman veteran was signed to play yet Herbert had to play due to injury and showed 100% he should have started from day 1 and is recognized today as a top NFL QB.

Are their better examples? Analytics and comparable prospects say start Maye day 1 for most team wins and fastest development.

One last thing to look at, any recent examples: CJ Stroud. Bad team that came into his year rated poor offensive line. Less of a prospect than Maye though. In an interview he specifically pointed out how playing the first few games, he learned things about the Pro game that he hadn't learned in college and played better after that due to the things he learned playing. When asked which QB in the draft is most ready to start: He stated Drake Maye because he already showed he knew the things Stroud had to learn.

So we have to detailed analysis, 2 historical examples that correlate to Drake Maye the most, a recent successful rookie QB stating that Maye is ahead of where he was coming in.


These are the things that need to be argued against, proven wrong, with better analytics, better examples etc. I tried, I couldn't thus I'm left with it obviously best for short and long term to start Drake Maye from day 1.

Will it really matter in 2025 if Maye only plays 8 games this year? Probably not but that's not the point, the point is if you are a really good coach/GM/manager you need to analyze everything and let the answer be what it is. In this case the odds heavily favor Maye playing from Day 1, unless you want to lose more this year than next year, which might be the case. Otherwise, the Patriots are making a mistake so IT IS NOT THE RIGHT CALL, AND IT IS NOT THE ONLY CALL.

 

[mikey m]

He can tear his ACL any time, any year.

Not playing him because if you play him he could get hurt and not be able to play is the dumbest logic ever. Your way he never plays when he’s healthy.

No football coach ever would have that logic, it’s stupid.

Except that that is literally what is happening. I promise if we had even a mediocre OL Maye would be starting week 1. This is is literally the worst OL maybe ever put on an NFL field which makes injury far more likely than normal, QB development far less productive, and QB developing bad habits from due to an OL inspiring absolutely zero trust far more likely. There is absolutely zero benefit sending him out there week 1 vs. say, week 8 other than your supposed claim that he will be 7 weeks better at football by that time. Even if true, in the big picture view of Maye's potential 15 year career, who gives a ****. Regardless of your refusal to acknowledge them, there are absolutely potential negatives of starting a rookie QB in a **** situation. This coaching staff agrees (I promise they are fully aware they aren't winning anything with Brissett), Ernie Adams agrees, and plenty of others who are not daft enough to think that a rookie cannot learn anything from the sideline and go in more prepared a month or 2 down the road. I promise there will be plenty of adversity for him to overcome then.

 

[mikey m]

I refuse to do your research for you. If your unwilling to Google to find the 2 studies then you clearly did not do enough work on this to have a opinion that is worthy of rebuttal.

It's not rocket science:
2 separate people set out to analyze whether it is better to sit or play a QB. Analyzing 20 years of data they both, separately, concluded it is best to start from day 1. One of them went further and analyzed it to conclude top 10 drafted QB's on bad teams outperform any of the other QB's when starting from day 1.
Unless you can find some analyses or willing to do one then based on the analysis done and the details behind it the evidence clearly supports that position. I looked for the same detailed studies that would conclude otherwise, could not find them, I am unwilling to do that research myself. I will rely on the pretty thorough analyses until shown something else. Of course, this is not meant to say you can't sit or you have to start or all starters right way succeed etc. It just concludes the odds say start right away. So, NOBODY can say history, or these examples prove otherwise because they are not comparing to all samples. Until otherwise shown, the best evidence to date concludes start top rookie QB's from Day 1 for best results.

Then, of course, you move onto what about Maye in particular? He's compared to Herbert and Allen, both started as 22 year old rookies a large number of games both are recognized today as top NFL QB's. Herbert mirrors Maye to a T. Same criticisms Maye gets, Herbert got, same bad team and bad line, Herbert was meant to sit for most of the season as was not ready and a journeyman veteran was signed to play yet Herbert had to play due to injury and showed 100% he should have started from day 1 and is recognized today as a top NFL QB.

Are their better examples? Analytics and comparable prospects say start Maye day 1 for most team wins and fastest development.

One last thing to look at, any recent examples: CJ Stroud. Bad team that came into his year rated poor offensive line. Less of a prospect than Maye though. In an interview he specifically pointed out how playing the first few games, he learned things about the Pro game that he hadn't learned in college and played better after that due to the things he learned playing. When asked which QB in the draft is most ready to start: He stated Drake Maye because he already showed he knew the things Stroud had to learn.

So we have to detailed analysis, 2 historical examples that correlate to Drake Maye the most, a recent successful rookie QB stating that Maye is ahead of where he was coming in.


These are the things that need to be argued against, proven wrong, with better analytics, better examples etc. I tried, I couldn't thus I'm left with it obviously best for short and long term to start Drake Maye from day 1.

Will it really matter in 2025 if Maye only plays 8 games this year? Probably not but that's not the point, the point is if you are a really good coach/GM/manager you need to analyze everything and let the answer be what it is. In this case the odds heavily favor Maye playing from Day 1, unless you want to lose more this year than next year, which might be the case. Otherwise, the Patriots are making a mistake so IT IS NOT THE RIGHT CALL, AND IT IS NOT THE ONLY CALL.

Sometimes you follow analytics, sometimes you don't. Reason being? They do not give you the right answer for what's ahead. All they tell you is what has happened in the past. It's up to leadership to determine when to follow them and when not to. Many of us think that the worst OL ever assembled (so far as we can tell at this point) does not compare to past examples and warrants deviating from the apparent past higher probability of success for the QB starting day 1.

 

[Ring 6]

Except that that is literally what is happening. I promise if we had even a mediocre OL Maye would be starting week 1. This is is literally the worst OL maybe ever put on an NFL field which makes injury far more likely than normal, QB development far less productive, and QB developing bad habits from due to an OL inspiring absolutely zero trust far more likely. There is absolutely zero benefit sending him out there week 1 vs. say, week 8 other than your supposed claim that he will be 7 weeks better at football by that time. Even if true, in the big picture view of Maye's potential 15 year career, who gives a ****. Regardless of your refusal to acknowledge them, there are absolutely potential negatives of starting a rookie QB in a **** situation. This coaching staff agrees (I promise they are fully aware they aren't winning anything with Brissett), Ernie Adams agrees, and plenty of others who are not daft enough to think that a rookie cannot learn anything from the sideline and go in more prepared a month or 2 down the road. I promise there will be plenty of adversity for him to overcome then.

Yeah, we disagree.
I never said he can’t learn anything from the sideline I am saying he learns MORE by playing.
And ON THIS SPECIFIC TEAM the priority isn’t waiting until he is ready, because they aren’t going to win, the priority is his development.
Your opinion of who agrees with what, is one I do not agree with

 

[Pape]

I refuse to do your research for you.

Im not asking you to do my research. If I want to research something, I will. However, I am asking you to provide links to your sources, to these "detailed analyses" you so grandly tout as the be all end all of football making decisions. How'd that grand proclamation you made in the all 22 break down of the OLine, the one "backed up by pff" in game 2 work out in game 3?

IT IS NOT THE RIGHT CALL, AND IT IS NOT THE ONLY CALL.

It is the only call.

Know how I know? Get ready, here it comes... the answer... Its so simple... no "detailed analyses" no "pff ratings say..."

here's the answer, its a little blurry, just click on it...
---- ? ----

A:If you have been paying attention, Thats what they said they were going to do, for months now and it's exactly what the team did. Doesn't take a rocket scientist or a "detailed analyses" to figure it out. Clown

 

[KCSVEN]

Im not asking you to do my research. If I want to research something,

I posted the links at least twice.
Your spoiler is stupid, I said all along they planned on starting Brissett. The question was whether that the right and only decision, and it was not.

The all-22 breakdown went fine in game 2 and game 3, as Lazar and Kyles agreed, on film game 3 was not nearly as bad as people thought, I posted on game 3 already, game 2 was better but different lineup, Robinson was bad in game 3, the guy I said in game 1 was not ready to start, even after the hype after week 2.

I don't get taking such a strong opinion on something you refuse to research, seems like the definition of clown.

 

[KCSVEN]

Many of us think that the worst OL ever assembled (so far as we can tell at this point) does not compare to past examples and warrants deviating from the apparent past higher probability of success for the QB starting day 1.

It's not the worst offensive line ever, if all 5 starters can actually play, they'll be fine, outside of left tackle question mark which can be mitigated with play calling. Maye was sacked once, Brissett once. A 4.1% sack rate.

If they have to play backups it gets sketchy but there is nothing in the tape suggesting the top 5 cannot be an adequate line.

Sack % is as much on the QB. That # historically follows the QB behind any line within a few percent. You'd like to be under 6% ideally but over 7.8% has been the number most closely associated with QB busts.

 

[PScottman]

If he’s worried about getting hurt then he’s the wrong guy.

His worries are immaterial to this debate. The QB isn't making this decision (nor should a rookie QB - ever).

You don't charge the cavalry to the front line at the beginning of a battle where you're vastly outnumbered (but can't retreat and have to fight). You make more strategic, long term decisions, usually in retrograde, to draw the enemy toward a position where you might have a better chance later (i.e. when you've gotten both scheme and repetitions in to shore up a fatal weakness - in this case the OL).

Yes, you are supposed the charge the ambush because you're probably dead already if you've blundered into one, but the Patriots are not in an ambush. They know what's coming and that they're going to be at a massive disadvantage all year. Taking your likely best man, putting him front and center and saying "come cripple us not only for this year, but the years to come too by taking him out" knowing you've got literally no way to adequately protect him this early in the campaign?

Just a strategy I can't wrap my head around.