Patriots about to make a BIG mistake?

[Ring 6]

People are talking too much trash about Biscuit because of the Eagles game, yes the pick was ugly, but the sample is too short anyway. He was moving the ball, this offense is a work in progress, there's to much moving parts all over it for a rookie to process, he should worry to process the other team, not his team at the same time.

Brissett is the perfect QB for this situation, he has several years of experience, started many games and know his place and what his job is, he can handle the job. He is not a Top QB of course not, that guy would not accept this job. Let Jacoby start for at least 6 weeks and then we see how things are going.

That would be 6 missed opportunities for Maye to gain experience and accelerate his development

 

[raduray]

Superbowl or bust

So that's a bust then.

 

[SneadsFerryTarHeel]

It's been a theory of mine for the last several seasons that the Patriots have an internal policy of telegraphing every big move they make by teasing it through the Boston sports media before it happens. This allows them to gauge fans initial response and then proceed to build popular momentum for any big move so that it's palatable to the fanbase by the time it happens. This way ownership takes minimal criticism and the all important bottom line remains unimpacted.
I'll leave historical examples of this behavior for another thread, because what I really want to talk about is the 180 the media pulled after the Eagles preseason game...

Every other article I've read out of Boston Media outlets (and sports radio) is favorably reciting the same talking points about Drake Maye's performance against the Eagles and his "progression" in the "competition" for QB 1. If you only read the media and didn't watch the game you'd think he must have had an exceptional outing.

REALITY: Maye went 6/11 throwing for 47 yards, with no TD's, no Int's, and took a sack. He averaged 4.3 yards per passing attempt and had a QB rating of... 65.3 He RAN the ball 4 times and scored a touchdown... This was in a preseason game where every defense is vanilla and no one is game-planning and to put it into perspective our more-than-likely starter put up a stat line reminiscent of Tim Tebow...

Drake Maye is going to start... He's going to start this season... And he'll probably start in the first four weeks of the season (potentially game 1). I say this just based on what the media and now Jerod Mayo have started to intimate, because I've seen this media about-face and blitz too many times in the last three years to expect anything but follow through...

I can't overstate how big a mistake this would be... This Rookie QB should be brought along as the final complimentary piece of an already seasoned offense, not asked to carry the worst offensive line and receiving group in the NFL mere months after battling the likes Campbell, Appalachian state, and Duke...

What do you think about him starting this season - or even game 1?

Maybe figure out the Offensive Line, and then decide when to bring Drake in. I will say that he IS used to sub-par offensive line play while he played at Carolina, so I'm not sure he would lose confidence right away and be a bust...

 

[vicspats]

So that's a bust then.

Yuuuuuppp..: pretty much .. turn the lights out before you leave. Thanks

 

[mgteich]

4 wins is the ceiling. There isn’t a game on the schedule they would be favored in.
Just for laughs who are your 4 guaranteed wins?

Arithmetic is really, really difficult.

Being the underdog in every game doesn't mean that we are likely to win zero games. That's just nonsense.
----------
Let's just use the numbers for 3 games. Say we are 2-1 underdogs in the first 3 games. Then, surely we should expect us to winless after 3 games, right? Nope. We would have about a 70% chance of winning at least one of the games. It's just arithmetic.
======
The betters believe that we aren't favored in any of our games at this point, and that we are just about as likely to win fewer than four games as winning more than 4.

 

[Ring 6]

Arithmetic is really, really difficult.

Being the underdog in every game doesn't mean that we are likely to win zero games. That's just nonsense.
----------
Let's just use the numbers for 3 games. Say we are 2-1 underdogs in the first 3 games. Then, surely we should expect us to winless after 3 games, right? Nope. We would have about a 70% chance of winning at least one of the games. It's just arithmetic.
======
The betters believe that we aren't favored in any of our games at this point, and that we are just about as likely to win fewer than four games as winning more than 4.

You understand that games aren’t won or lost my probability right?
You realize that being CONSIDERED a 2:1 underdog does not mean you put 2 red marbles and 1 blue in a bag and determine the winner by pulling one out, don’t you?
You realize that the odds set for gambling do not determine results, right?

I’m over here in the real world where 2 football teams play a game against each other, and the one that is worse doesn’t win very often. Please let me know when they start deciding outcomes by drawing straws or rolling dice.

 

[raduray]

I don't have a problem with Brissett as a

You understand that games aren’t won or lost my probability right?
You realize that being CONSIDERED a 2:1 underdog does not mean you put 2 red marbles and 1 blue in a bag and determine the winner by pulling one out, don’t you?
You realize that the odds set for gambling do not determine results, right?

I’m over here in the real world where 2 football teams play a game against each other, and the one that is worse doesn’t win very often. Please let me know when they start deciding outcomes by drawing straws or rolling dice.

Regarding your marbles analogy, over a large number of attempts, red will win two thirds of the time. However, regarding football, there aren't multiple rolls of the dice on a given week and any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday. There are intangibles. And that's what the tail end of the bell curve is all about.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't have a problem with Brissett as a
Regarding your marbles analogy, over a large number of attempts, red will win two thirds of the time. However, regarding football, there aren't multiple rolls of the dice on a given week and any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday. There are intangibles. And that's what the tail end of the bell curve is all about.

Exactly.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Isn't the over under 4.5 games?

 

[Spiral]

First off, there will be no one injured on the teams the Pats face this season. Everything will go as planned for every opponent because that's the way the NFL works. There are never any surprises and the Pats will face all the original starters in 17 games.

4 wins

1. Seattle has to travel coast to coast with a brand new HC.
2. Jacksonville and Lawrence have been a disappointment.
3. Tennessee is starting over like NE.
4. Arizona Im not impressed with Kyler Murray.

If those are locks like you say they are, take the money line vs. Seattle and let it ride three times. Let us know what island you buy after the Arizona game.

 

[Triumph]

If those are locks like you say they are, take the money line vs. Seattle and let it ride three times. Let us know what island you buy after the Arizona game.

So, those games are all losses?

I that your prediction?

 

[Spiral]

So, those games are all losses?

I that your prediction?

This is one of the worst rosters I've seen since the late 60s/early 70s Patriots teams. I think they'll be in the bottom five of the league. I think 1-3 in those four games seems about right, but who knows?

 

[notex]

I've never fully understood the psychology of "ruining" a franchise QB by starting them too early. The QB position requires many things, but I'd say its important to remember that the learning curve is constant and requires the player to be resilient and learn from mistakes.

If a player cannot mentally "recover" from a bad season with a lot of sacks, I tend to lean towards the thinking that maybe he wasn't a franchise QB in the first place...Do we think Tom Brady would have been "ruined" by starting him too early in his career?

Impossible to tell, but I don't think there are a ton of guys who had the right mental/physical tools to be a franchise QB that were turned into "busts" by starting them too early. Just my opinion.

Big caveat is if the OL is SO atrocious that its actually putting them in physical danger..... I really can't say if ours is that bad, but I wouldnt hesitate to start a guy out of fear that they will become a "bust" for psychological reasons.