An FYI On Mac Jones

[Stu Pidassle]

Facts don't always tell the whole story. I hope Mac views this the way TB12 viewed the team spending a second round draft pick on JG.

 

[upstater1]

I lumped you in on the response because of your comment attempting to contrast Mac's alleged "jittery pocket movements" with Zappe. Mac is just fine in the pocket when there IS a pocket and he can go through his progressions. Zappe has been very well protected in addition to not being asked to do nearly as much.

This. We were praising Mac for his pocket awareness last year. This year he has been jittery and has had bad mechanics. Things have changed. I think I know why.

 

[venecol]

Numerous analysts have said that Mac was releasing the ball early even w/o pressure. His sack% is slightly lower than last season. Pressure % is 32% lower. TD% is half, INT% is double. He already has 9 scrambles vs 15 total last season. He's been jittery. Rest and get healthy Mac.

 

[NG Pats Fan]

It's so obvious how posters are making every excuse in the book to minimize Mac's poor play in his 3 games and also minimize Zappe's good plays in his 2 games. I've defended Mac from 100% culpability and held Patricia more responsible for his poor play. But at the end of the day, Mac has played poorly so far in his 2nd season.

Positives that are being discounted:
1. By all accounts Mac had a great offseason of preparation in nutrition, strength conditioning, throwing mechanics & arm strength that was wildly praised.
2. 2nd season w/ a full TC w/ 1st team reps;
3. Familiarity & chemistry with 88% of his skill players (WR, TE, RBs);
4. Expected 2nd year growth by this same group of skill players.

Negatives that are valid:
1. New OC/QB coaches and schemes (on BB);
2. Though only 1 new G, the OL was revamped & new schemes introduced (on Patricia).

It's difficult to know if the negatives have outweighed the positives in his development and performance so far. There's no doubt he's looked both uncomfortable and frustrated out there. I personally blame the negatives.

In comparison, Zappe had none of the positives or any of the negatives as a rookie 3rd string QB. So to me, his performance is a better indication of his raw ability and talent. He's performed very well with what he's asked to do. It's clear he can do more. He's unfazed by the moment, remains calm, and per Belichick:

“... made a lot of good decisions. Was accurate with the ball. Thought he showed some poise there in some pressure situations where he got out of it and found an open receiver, made good decisions. He does a good job of seeing the game and can come off and identify and articulate what he saw, what happened — and that’s usually right. What he saw is usually what I saw or, maybe, when you look at the film, maybe there’s something that’s a little gray in there, his explanation is actually good. It was the way he saw it. Maybe he might not have done the right thing, but he saw the game."

He's saying that Zappe is seeing the game in real-time the way Bill is seeing it. That certainly sounds like a guy that processes info fast and can read defenses.

Not sure if this is known, but Bailey was calling his own plays in college. He was given the freedom to adjust and change plays. There aren't enough practices that can teach that level of decision making, regardless of the competition.

Obviously, Mac is the starter when he returns and Zappe is QB2. I would like to see more of Zappe as a starter while Mac recovers completely. These next games should be wins against below average teams, so why not see what else this kid can do. It's a win-win for the team.

Discounting Zappe as: not a starting NFL QB or a career back-up is disingenous. Just because you bought a Mac jersey doesn't mean you have to sh*t on Zappe.

How about we get Mac Jones some weapons to build his confidence?

Why does Tua get to play with Hill and Waddle?

Allen has Diggs?

Even Kyle Wilson has 2022 8th overall pick Garrett Wilson and Elijah Moore

 

[venecol]

I wonder what Mac is thinking about these non answers. I just can't see how this could be a boost to his confidence.

 

[Tunescribe]

Jones played well at times against Baltimore, but I'll be hard pressed to say any QB that throws 3 INTs in a game played "great".

One INT was unequivocally his fault, threw it right to the defender. One was borderline, can't know who ultimately received blame without being in the meeting room, but even if Parker could've done more, there is no doubt that throw from Jones was high-risk (especially given field position and score). The final INT came in garbage time and looked like a missed throw or a breakdown in communication between Jones and the receiver; that one was the least impactful given when it occurred.

He played pretty well for stretches of the game and was able to push the ball downfield a bit and get some chunk plays. But you simply cannot throw three (or two, if you will) interceptions in a single game with any regularity, especially without TDs to go with the interceptions.

How can you claim to know what is "unequivocal" and what isn't when in your next breath you make the meeting room final arbiter? This Zappe > Mac campaign you're on is getting tedious. Do yourself a favor and broaden your football horizons -- learn the basics of play-action, for instance, so you'll understand the difference between what LOOKS unequivocally the quarterback's fault and what might be a bad play call for that down/distance/defense. Or examine how Parker's blown assignment precipitated the end zone interception. All the info is out there from expert sources you can trust, often belying one's eyewitness conclusions. Uninformed conjecture retro-fitting a questionable premise really doesn't help.

 

[signbabybrady]

I wonder what Mac is thinking about these non answers. I just can't see how this could be a boost to his confidence.

I'm sure he is way more worried about the things Bill is teaching/telling him directly. Then trying to read between the lines like some internet troll or talk show host.

 

[Thelonious]

The problem here is the term "quarterback controversy." First of all, a "controversy" is a thing external to the actual workings of any well-functioning team. Controversies are an element of the "noise" Bill rightly derides."Controversies" are a thing Bleichick does not and should not care about. Pundits toss the term around in lieu of offering actual insight. Fans fall into two categories: those who enjoy going all aflutter over the possibility there is one, and those macho posers - "professional, serious fans" - who enjoy deriding the former as nervous Nellies. Neither position means much. There is no "controversy," but there certainly ought to be - in keeping with Bill's long-held philosophy - an ongoing COMPETITION for playing time at every position, all the time. That we should and do have.

 

[Tunescribe]

Numerous analysts have said that Mac was releasing the ball early even w/o pressure. His sack% is slightly lower than last season. Pressure % is 32% lower. TD% is half, INT% is double. He already has 9 scrambles vs 15 total last season. He's been jittery. Rest and get healthy Mac.

I wonder what Mac is thinking about these non answers. I just can't see how this could be a boost to his confidence.

The fact you're trying SO hard with this stuff suggests you truly are a Trojan horse surreptitiously sent from Lord Dis Array's Tampa Bay forum to foment mischief and discord. It's not working.

 

[Wozzy]

I wonder what Mac is thinking about these non answers. I just can't see how this could be a boost to his confidence.

Competition is a good thing.

If he isn't driven by seeing another rookie step in and play well, then he's in the wrong sport.

He was on the verge of being benched before he got hurt. Why are we so concerned about Mac's feelings?

 

[mike_usagisan]

I wonder what Mac is thinking about these non answers. I just can't see how this could be a boost to his confidence.

I don't think Bill was trying to boost his confidence. I think he's being honest, "Hey let's see what happens." And at the same time, I think most QBs would see it as competition and a challenge to raise their game.

I don't think Bill talked about High School QB Johnny Foxborough all the time to Tom to boost his confidence. I think it pissed Tom off and made him play harder.

 

[Tunescribe]

Competition is a good thing.

If he isn't driven by seeing another rookie step in and play well, then he's in the wrong sport.

He was on the verge of being benched before he got hurt.

According to who? That's ridiculous.

 

[Wozzy]

According to who? That's ridiculous.

According to all the interceptions he was throwing.

 

[catent]

How can you claim to know what is "unequivocal" and what isn't when in your next breath you make the meeting room final arbiter? This Zappe > Mac campaign you're on is getting tedious. Do yourself a favor and broaden your football horizons -- learn the basics of play-action, for instance, so you'll understand the difference between what LOOKS unequivocally the quarterback's fault and what might be a bad play call for that down/distance/defense. Or examine how Parker's blown assignment precipitated the end zone interception. All the info is out there from expert sources you can trust, often belying one's eyewitness conclusions. Uninformed conjecture retro-fitting a questionable premise really doesn't help.

Watch Jones’ first INT against Baltimore and tell me who you think is at fault. Unequivocal? Maybe not. Very likely Jones’ fault? Yeah.

The second one was a toss-up to Parker. High risk throw in the red area, 50-50 ball. Jones seemed to think Parker should’ve made a better effort by showing visible frustration after the play. Was that more on Parker or Jones? Without being in the building it seems tough to tell.

See the difference between these situations? They’re not analogous, hence my analysis of each differs. Which, at the end of the day is just my opinion, and if you disagree with it, no worries. I could be wrong.

As for the rest of your post, if conjecture and speculation wasn’t allowed, this forum wouldn’t exist and many of your posts in this thread would violate your own rule. You’re sharing your speculative, subjective opinion just as much as I am, yet you want yours taken as ironclad, matter of fact truth, and others to align with it. If they don’t, it’s not that they saw the situation differently, or have a different analysis, or perhaps they are right. Anyone who disagrees with your assessment is fundamentally wrong, be it via ignorance, naivety, stupidity, lack of perspective, etc.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: We’re allowed to have different opinions of what we watched. Telling people their opinions are invalid, worthless, undermining, and dismissing their perspective, suggesting they’re naive, ignorant, etc, is a lousy approach to a conversation.

 

[Wozzy]

Watch Jones’ first INT against Baltimore and tell me who you think is at fault. Unequivocal? Maybe not. Very likely Jones’ fault? Yeah.

The second one was a toss-up to Parker. High risk throw in the red area, 50-50 ball. Jones seemed to think Parker should’ve made a better effort by showing visible frustration after the play. Was that more on Parker or Jones? Without being in the building it seems tough to tell.

See the difference between these situations? They’re not analogous, hence my analysis of each differs. Which, at the end of the day is just my opinion, and if you disagree with it, no worries. I could be wrong.

As for the rest of your post, if conjecture and speculation wasn’t allowed, this forum wouldn’t exist and many of your posts in this thread would violate your own rule. You’re sharing your speculative, subjective opinion just as much as I am, yet you want yours taken as ironclad, matter of fact truth, and others to align with it. If they don’t, it’s not that they saw the situation differently, or have a different analysis, or perhaps they are right. Anyone who disagrees with your assessment is fundamentally wrong, be it via ignorance, naivety, stupidity, lack of perspective, etc.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: We’re allowed to have different opinions of what we watched. Telling people their opinions are invalid, worthless, undermining, and dismissing their perspective, suggesting they’re naive, ignorant, etc, is a lousy approach to a conversation.

Just about every one of his interceptions was his fault. It wasn't the play called, it wasn't his arm strength or Matt Patricia's abilities. It was poor decision making. And he only had to make 2-3 poor decisions a game to cost his team a win.

It wasn't like he was playing bad. When he went down with injury he was ranked 11th in passing yards despite ranking 22nd in pass attempts. he was completing passes downfield and moving the ball. The mistakes is what killed us. If he can clean that up he is a very good QB, if he can't BB isn't going to sit idly by and watch him lose us games.

 

[Ian]

According to who? That's ridiculous.

That was a Mike Lombardi innuendo in one of his podcasts - it was a big topic of discussion on talk radio locally. Basically saying "if he keeps turning it over" he might be sat down.

 

[Tunescribe]

Watch Jones’ first INT against Baltimore and tell me who you think is at fault. Unequivocal? Maybe not. Very likely Jones’ fault? Yeah.

The second one was a toss-up to Parker. High risk throw in the red area, 50-50 ball. Jones seemed to think Parker should’ve made a better effort by showing visible frustration after the play. Was that more on Parker or Jones? Without being in the building it seems tough to tell.

This is why I have suggested you augment what you believe to be "very likely" with info from expert analysts grounded in how things work and team-sourced connections. You say, "Jones seemed to think Parker should’ve made a better effort by showing visible frustration after the play. Was that more on Parker or Jones?" If you were serious about getting that question answered, you could. I even laid it out for you but you prefer to conflate reasons with "excuses."

See the difference between these situations? They’re not analogous, hence my analysis of each differs. Which, at the end of the day is just my opinion, and if you disagree with it, no worries. I could be wrong.

As for the rest of your post, if conjecture and speculation wasn’t allowed, this forum wouldn’t exist and many of your posts in this thread would violate your own rule. You’re sharing your speculative, subjective opinion just as much as I am, yet you want yours taken as ironclad, matter of fact truth, and others to align with it. If they don’t, it’s not that they saw the situation differently, or have a different analysis, or perhaps they are right. Anyone who disagrees with your assessment is fundamentally wrong, be it via ignorance, naivety, stupidity, lack of perspective, etc.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: We’re allowed to have different opinions of what we watched. Telling people their opinions are invalid, worthless, undermining, and dismissing their perspective, suggesting they’re naive, ignorant, etc, is a lousy approach to a conversation.

Conjecture, speculation and opinion aren't the problem here. Willingness to be suitably informed/educated as the basis for presenting them to others, is.

 

[Bill Lee]

Competition is a good thing.

If he isn't driven by seeing another rookie step in and play well, then he's in the wrong sport.

Sure, and he sure had competition at Alabama, and was able to win and keep the job.

He was on the verge of being benched before he got hurt.

You lost me here. I've commented a lot about the INTs and how much BB preaches ball security, but at no point did I get the feeling Mac was close to being benched. For who? Hoyer? Really? It's not like he's free of INTs in his career nor better at delivering the ball. He also doesn't have a great pocket presence or really any mobility at all. Zappe only emerged because the two QBs ahead of him got injured, otherwise he'd still be on the PS roster. At least has the fact that his upside is unknown going for him, but that's about it.

Why are we so concerned about Mac's feelings?

Personally, I don't know if Mac is good with "hard coaching" like Tom was, or if he's the kind of person who is more driven by logic rather than emotion.

Regardless, I would think his Alabama experience had to give him a tough skin.

 

[Tunescribe]

That was a Mike Lombardi innuendo in one of his podcasts - it was a big topic of discussion on talk radio locally. Basically saying "if he keeps turning it over" he might be sat down.

I don't know about you but I was very surprised by what Lombardi said, I thought he was more insightful than that. Or maybe he's just become another media pot-stirrer, which would be sad.

 

[Ian]

I don't know about you but I was very surprised by what Lombardi said, I thought he was more insightful than that. Or maybe he's just become another media pot-stirrer, which would be sad.

I agree, especially considering the way he worded it resulted in people writing outrageous headlines as fact given that it was just an obvious opinion and it spread across the internet. But overall, I don't think he's as well connected on the day-to-day stuff now that his son isn't there anymore, so I don't know how relevant some of it is. Which, as you said, is too bad because I always thought he provided some pretty good insight.