Mac Jones Is Our QB1
- Thread starter chevss454
- Start date
Share this page
Just watched GMF on NFLN. They rated the top preseason rookie performers by position.
#1 QB Mac the Knife
#1 RB Stevenson
#1 QB Mac the Knife
#1 RB Stevenson
OP
OP
Rodney Harrison doesn't mince words
"I just think this is the right guy for the job. And it's a no-brainer to me. I don't understand how this could be hard for coach Belichick. I know he has a lot of loyalty to Cam, but at the end of the day, the thing he always preached to us, he said, 'I'm going to do what's best for the team.' In my opinion, what's best for the team is starting Mac Jones and not Cam Newton."
"I just think this is the right guy for the job. And it's a no-brainer to me. I don't understand how this could be hard for coach Belichick. I know he has a lot of loyalty to Cam, but at the end of the day, the thing he always preached to us, he said, 'I'm going to do what's best for the team.' In my opinion, what's best for the team is starting Mac Jones and not Cam Newton."
Flagg the Wanderer
Mourning Algernon
Dan Orlovsky and someone else on a panel with him we're both talking the same way. Very "anoint-y" language about Mac.
Mazz22
A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies.
Something that is not being mentioned that I think is important here is Bill isn't just loyal to Cam. Bill has a philosophy at the QB position that he inherited from Parcells.
Think back to Bill's history of QBs. He brought in Testaverde, who wasn't actually good but had the league's #1 defense and a strong running game. Testaverde in 1994 had 16 TDs and 18 INTS, and no, that wasn't good even back then. They were also 3-0 that year with Mark Rypien.
For whatever reason the narrative is that Bill was ballsy to move on from Kosar. In reality, Testaverde's QB rating in 1994 (70) was far worse than Kosar's in 1993 (77) and 1992 (87).
Bill has gone with that Parcells idea of the steady eddie quarterback who is coachable, reliable, though not necessarily good. Parcells signed on Testaverde in 1998 with the Jets, and again, it's not a surprise they were overmatched by John Elway in the AFCCG.
Parcells then went with Bledsoe again when he went to Dallas, even though Bledsoe, like Testaverde, is a guy you can't win with in the modern NFL. He just isn't good; worse than average by that point.
So here we are with Bill and his Cam fixation. It is the same theme all over again - a guy who is a locker room leader, coachable, etc. but almost exactly like Bledsoe/Testaverde: a former #1 pick, downside of his career, not going to get you to the next level.
Now, I asked this previously but never received any answer. What will it actually take for Bill to sit Cam in favor of Mac? Every single football person and most if not all here on this board, see that Mac has the goods and is by far the better choice right now even though I am concerned about Mac's knee as I want him for the long haul.
But the question still remains - we all know Bill's football acumen so there is no way he does not see what is evident YET Cam has been QB1 ALL preseason/TC despite Mac outperforming him. I find this concerning as all heck.
If he starts Mac for game one, and this household feels he will start Cam, where does that leave Cam? A backup and a supporter? This could work for Mac has said repeatedly how much support he is getting from Hoyer and Cam. But does it work for Cam?
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 29,156
- Reaction score
- 9,498
- Points
- 113
Everyone knows eventually Mac will be the starter. But if Cam plays well enough to win, it will only benefit Mac by having time to learn before being thrust in.
Big/Sky/Fly
370hssv vw6!s tu36v
Hawg73
Mediocre with flashes of brilliance
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2002
- Messages
- 25,164
- Reaction score
- 11,535
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 68
- Location
- Gumdrop house on Lollipop Ln.
He does not mince words. Exactly. Harrison doesn't worry about playing nice. Doesn't care about sacred cows. The guy has zero filter, which is why he stands out. EVERYBODY in the business has a filter but Rodney.
DeflateThis
Well-known member
Why would he announce it? Let the opponents guess and prepare for both. And keep the competition.
Phil Elliott
Well-known member
Cam just released.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Messages
- 23,373
- Reaction score
- 4,788
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Circumlocuting around New England...
Phil Elliott
Well-known member
You can rest easy now, sweetie...
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 29,156
- Reaction score
- 9,498
- Points
- 113
Mea culpa
Roberto71
Well-known member
Care to maybe re-write this?!
Flagg the Wanderer
Mourning Algernon
EDIT: Aw, crap! Well, I'll leave this up. The first section holds even better now!
To be clear, I agree with your observation at a high level, though I disagree that it's a negative. A coach that has a legitimate coaching advantage against all opposing coaches the majority of the time should want a QB who will make all the decisions the coach would make, always. That said, I'm scratching my head at your conclusion. Mac Jones is that guy. He's the sponge, wildly coachable, seemingly not just willing, but anxious to be the praxis that conveys Belichick's football acumen to the field with as few translation errors as possible.
I think Belichick does see it. And I think that if he were going only by raw level of play, Mac Jones would be QB1 and Cam would be a backup and maybe deployed for specific situational/matchup and/or gadget packages. But there's more to the decision than that.
First, there is the locker room. Cam is a leader and, apparently, part of the reason why some of this year's free agent class came to the Patriots. To avoid splitting the locker room, as many players (and all of the coaching staff) needs to be confident that Mac is the better choice. As well as Mac has performed in college, in practice, and in the preseason, players respect in-game excellence at the NFL level above all else. They've all seen plenty of practice field heroes, and hordes of college superstars that flame out when they get to the NFL. Cam has proved it on the field. Sure, last year was bad, but there's a slew of reasons that could be behind that: Covid, injury, first year in the system, no preseason, etc... Are you going to get to 100% agreement? Almost certainly not. But you want to get close before making the switch, and lean on your team leaders to mitigate any dissent in the locker room.
Second, there's Cam himself. I don't think Cam would become a problem if he was benched, but we really don't know. He's never been in a battle for his job, and he sure as hell hasn't ever lost one, so we don't know how he'd react if and when that happens. But you want to minimize any risk from Cam's attitude as much as possible. If you're a real jedi at this, you can even get to the point where Cam himself sees that this is the way to go. I was once employed at a shop in Connecticut that is (along with it's founder and CEO) famous/notorious for it's principles of management and way of being. They had a huge focus on ownership, do your job, next man up, zero ego, transparent and objective evaluation of yourself and others, the whole bit. Very "Patriot Way." They would have "sync" meetings which dove into people's performance and worked on "getting to truth" about people's capabilities, performance, potential, etc., They would have them in great detail and shockingly often. The end result of this - which I saw and even participated in on multiple occasions - was sometimes that an employee agreed that they shouldn't be in the job they were in. They were essentially signing off on a transfer, demotion, or even to resign because they were essentially agreeing that they should be fired (or weren't good enough to make it on the career path they wanted to be on, and so would unhappily stagnate.)
Point being, ideally you want to get to the point where Cam himself sees that it's better to make the switch to Mac. If he accepts this - or at least accepts that it's what the team believes - he's more likely to be a net positive in a backup/mentor/changeup role. Plus, as has been pointed out by others, if you start Cam and switch to Mac, that's what's expected. Everyone knows it's coming, will be able to see it as it approaches, and is already preparing mentally for it. If you start Mac and end up having to switch to Cam...different story. If Cam comes in and performs well, not only do you risk splitting the locker room when Mac is back available but, if you have to sit Mac for performance reasons, you run a real risk of long-term damage to Mac. Some guys never get that mojo back.
Finally, Mac is a rookie. That's not just a label of number of years in the league. It matters.
What are the big risks of rookies?
1) Low level of confidence at what you're going to get;
2) Lack of experience leads to mental errors, particularly problems with
a) turnovers/big plays; and
b) situational football; and
3) The wear and tear of the bigger/faster/stronger players and the season which, if all goes well, is nearly twice as long as the college season.
I think Mac is pretty unique in that he dramatically lowers the concern of #1, nearly eliminates 2b and cuts 2a way down. But #3 still stands as a real concern. You can't study your way out of #3. And for that reason, unless Cam is really botching it and the Pats are losing games they would otherwise win, the ideal situation is that Mac is sitting for at least the first several games - maybe a quarter of the season or so. Shave off the risk associated with #3. Buy Mac more time to gel with the team, more time in the film room and in Josh's hip pocket. Save him the hits from the tough, pass rushing defenses of Miami, New Orleans, and Tampa.
Cam seems to be playing well enough right now that I don't think you're losing much, if anything, by playing him for the first few games of the season. And doing that provides real, tangible benefits. Plus, while Belichick certainly prefers winning to losing, he's never worried overmuch about starting out 2-2 or whatever. This schedule starts out pretty rough. My expectation is that we're likely to come out of the gate 2-2 regardless of who is starting. Decent shot at 3-1, small (but definitely non-zero) chance of 1-3 or 4-0. If Cam plays well, we win one extra game in that span. If he plays badly, maybe lose one we should win (or maybe the defense salvages it anyway!)...but we're freer to make the switch with fewer problems from Cam or the locker room. With the expanded playoffs, I expect 10-7 to get into the playoffs. Given the rest of the schedule, the defense, the running game, and the ball control nature of the offense, 9-4 is very realistic the rest of the way.
Buy Mac some more time to absorb...everything. Give Cam time to showcase himself, and get his head around being a backup and mentor to a kid who clearly has him outgunned. Save Mac some wear and tear.
Play for December and January. And February. Because after all...
This. Is. Foxborough!
So this is an interesting comment. I agree with you that this is Belichick's tendency, even back to Eric Zeier or whatever his name was. Belichick is a football savant, and the best possible QB he could have would essentially just be a conduit of his insight onto the field. But it's odd that you'd relate Cam - or Bledsoe, though to a lesser extent - to this. I don't think Bledsoe fit that mold much. He relied on his arm rather than his reads, didn't do much in terms of manipulating a defense or working the pocket. Cam relies even more on his physical superiority, and has the added aspect of a "gunslinger" attitude and a tendency towards improvisation and pure instinct when things break down.
To be clear, I agree with your observation at a high level, though I disagree that it's a negative. A coach that has a legitimate coaching advantage against all opposing coaches the majority of the time should want a QB who will make all the decisions the coach would make, always. That said, I'm scratching my head at your conclusion. Mac Jones is that guy. He's the sponge, wildly coachable, seemingly not just willing, but anxious to be the praxis that conveys Belichick's football acumen to the field with as few translation errors as possible.
I've been thinking about this far more than I probably should, and I'm going to take a shot at answering both of these at once:
I think Belichick does see it. And I think that if he were going only by raw level of play, Mac Jones would be QB1 and Cam would be a backup and maybe deployed for specific situational/matchup and/or gadget packages. But there's more to the decision than that.
First, there is the locker room. Cam is a leader and, apparently, part of the reason why some of this year's free agent class came to the Patriots. To avoid splitting the locker room, as many players (and all of the coaching staff) needs to be confident that Mac is the better choice. As well as Mac has performed in college, in practice, and in the preseason, players respect in-game excellence at the NFL level above all else. They've all seen plenty of practice field heroes, and hordes of college superstars that flame out when they get to the NFL. Cam has proved it on the field. Sure, last year was bad, but there's a slew of reasons that could be behind that: Covid, injury, first year in the system, no preseason, etc... Are you going to get to 100% agreement? Almost certainly not. But you want to get close before making the switch, and lean on your team leaders to mitigate any dissent in the locker room.
Second, there's Cam himself. I don't think Cam would become a problem if he was benched, but we really don't know. He's never been in a battle for his job, and he sure as hell hasn't ever lost one, so we don't know how he'd react if and when that happens. But you want to minimize any risk from Cam's attitude as much as possible. If you're a real jedi at this, you can even get to the point where Cam himself sees that this is the way to go. I was once employed at a shop in Connecticut that is (along with it's founder and CEO) famous/notorious for it's principles of management and way of being. They had a huge focus on ownership, do your job, next man up, zero ego, transparent and objective evaluation of yourself and others, the whole bit. Very "Patriot Way." They would have "sync" meetings which dove into people's performance and worked on "getting to truth" about people's capabilities, performance, potential, etc., They would have them in great detail and shockingly often. The end result of this - which I saw and even participated in on multiple occasions - was sometimes that an employee agreed that they shouldn't be in the job they were in. They were essentially signing off on a transfer, demotion, or even to resign because they were essentially agreeing that they should be fired (or weren't good enough to make it on the career path they wanted to be on, and so would unhappily stagnate.)
Point being, ideally you want to get to the point where Cam himself sees that it's better to make the switch to Mac. If he accepts this - or at least accepts that it's what the team believes - he's more likely to be a net positive in a backup/mentor/changeup role. Plus, as has been pointed out by others, if you start Cam and switch to Mac, that's what's expected. Everyone knows it's coming, will be able to see it as it approaches, and is already preparing mentally for it. If you start Mac and end up having to switch to Cam...different story. If Cam comes in and performs well, not only do you risk splitting the locker room when Mac is back available but, if you have to sit Mac for performance reasons, you run a real risk of long-term damage to Mac. Some guys never get that mojo back.
Finally, Mac is a rookie. That's not just a label of number of years in the league. It matters.
What are the big risks of rookies?
1) Low level of confidence at what you're going to get;
2) Lack of experience leads to mental errors, particularly problems with
a) turnovers/big plays; and
b) situational football; and
3) The wear and tear of the bigger/faster/stronger players and the season which, if all goes well, is nearly twice as long as the college season.
I think Mac is pretty unique in that he dramatically lowers the concern of #1, nearly eliminates 2b and cuts 2a way down. But #3 still stands as a real concern. You can't study your way out of #3. And for that reason, unless Cam is really botching it and the Pats are losing games they would otherwise win, the ideal situation is that Mac is sitting for at least the first several games - maybe a quarter of the season or so. Shave off the risk associated with #3. Buy Mac more time to gel with the team, more time in the film room and in Josh's hip pocket. Save him the hits from the tough, pass rushing defenses of Miami, New Orleans, and Tampa.
Cam seems to be playing well enough right now that I don't think you're losing much, if anything, by playing him for the first few games of the season. And doing that provides real, tangible benefits. Plus, while Belichick certainly prefers winning to losing, he's never worried overmuch about starting out 2-2 or whatever. This schedule starts out pretty rough. My expectation is that we're likely to come out of the gate 2-2 regardless of who is starting. Decent shot at 3-1, small (but definitely non-zero) chance of 1-3 or 4-0. If Cam plays well, we win one extra game in that span. If he plays badly, maybe lose one we should win (or maybe the defense salvages it anyway!)...but we're freer to make the switch with fewer problems from Cam or the locker room. With the expanded playoffs, I expect 10-7 to get into the playoffs. Given the rest of the schedule, the defense, the running game, and the ball control nature of the offense, 9-4 is very realistic the rest of the way.
Buy Mac some more time to absorb...everything. Give Cam time to showcase himself, and get his head around being a backup and mentor to a kid who clearly has him outgunned. Save Mac some wear and tear.
Play for December and January. And February. Because after all...
This. Is. Foxborough!
You wrote it, you left it up so I respond. LOLOLEDIT: Aw, crap! Well, I'll leave this up. The first section holds even better now!
So this is an interesting comment. I agree with you that this is Belichick's tendency, even back to Eric Zeier or whatever his name was. Belichick is a football savant, and the best possible QB he could have would essentially just be a conduit of his insight onto the field. But it's odd that you'd relate Cam - or Bledsoe, though to a lesser extent - to this. I don't think Bledsoe fit that mold much. He relied on his arm rather than his reads, didn't do much in terms of manipulating a defense or working the pocket. Cam relies even more on his physical superiority, and has the added aspect of a "gunslinger" attitude and a tendency towards improvisation and pure instinct when things break down.
To be clear, I agree with your observation at a high level, though I disagree that it's a negative. A coach that has a legitimate coaching advantage against all opposing coaches the majority of the time should want a QB who will make all the decisions the coach would make, always. That said, I'm scratching my head at your conclusion. Mac Jones is that guy. He's the sponge, wildly coachable, seemingly not just willing, but anxious to be the praxis that conveys Belichick's football acumen to the field with as few translation errors as possible.
I've been thinking about this far more than I probably should, and I'm going to take a shot at answering both of these at once:
I think Belichick does see it. And I think that if he were going only by raw level of play, Mac Jones would be QB1 and Cam would be a backup and maybe deployed for specific situational/matchup and/or gadget packages. But there's more to the decision than that.
First, there is the locker room. Cam is a leader and, apparently, part of the reason why some of this year's free agent class came to the Patriots. To avoid splitting the locker room, as many players (and all of the coaching staff) needs to be confident that Mac is the better choice. As well as Mac has performed in college, in practice, and in the preseason, players respect in-game excellence at the NFL level above all else. They've all seen plenty of practice field heroes, and hordes of college superstars that flame out when they get to the NFL. Cam has proved it on the field. Sure, last year was bad, but there's a slew of reasons that could be behind that: Covid, injury, first year in the system, no preseason, etc... Are you going to get to 100% agreement? Almost certainly not. But you want to get close before making the switch, and lean on your team leaders to mitigate any dissent in the locker room.
Second, there's Cam himself. I don't think Cam would become a problem if he was benched, but we really don't know. He's never been in a battle for his job, and he sure as hell hasn't ever lost one, so we don't know how he'd react if and when that happens. But you want to minimize any risk from Cam's attitude as much as possible. If you're a real jedi at this, you can even get to the point where Cam himself sees that this is the way to go. I was once employed at a shop in Connecticut that is (along with it's founder and CEO) famous/notorious for it's principles of management and way of being. They had a huge focus on ownership, do your job, next man up, zero ego, transparent and objective evaluation of yourself and others, the whole bit. Very "Patriot Way." They would have "sync" meetings which dove into people's performance and worked on "getting to truth" about people's capabilities, performance, potential, etc., They would have them in great detail and shockingly often. The end result of this - which I saw and even participated in on multiple occasions - was sometimes that an employee agreed that they shouldn't be in the job they were in. They were essentially signing off on a transfer, demotion, or even to resign because they were essentially agreeing that they should be fired (or weren't good enough to make it on the career path they wanted to be on, and so would unhappily stagnate.)
Point being, ideally you want to get to the point where Cam himself sees that it's better to make the switch to Mac. If he accepts this - or at least accepts that it's what the team believes - he's more likely to be a net positive in a backup/mentor/changeup role. Plus, as has been pointed out by others, if you start Cam and switch to Mac, that's what's expected. Everyone knows it's coming, will be able to see it as it approaches, and is already preparing mentally for it. If you start Mac and end up having to switch to Cam...different story. If Cam comes in and performs well, not only do you risk splitting the locker room when Mac is back available but, if you have to sit Mac for performance reasons, you run a real risk of long-term damage to Mac. Some guys never get that mojo back.
Finally, Mac is a rookie. That's not just a label of number of years in the league. It matters.
What are the big risks of rookies?
1) Low level of confidence at what you're going to get;
2) Lack of experience leads to mental errors, particularly problems with
a) turnovers/big plays; and
b) situational football; and
3) The wear and tear of the bigger/faster/stronger players and the season which, if all goes well, is nearly twice as long as the college season.
I think Mac is pretty unique in that he dramatically lowers the concern of #1, nearly eliminates 2b and cuts 2a way down. But #3 still stands as a real concern. You can't study your way out of #3. And for that reason, unless Cam is really botching it and the Pats are losing games they would otherwise win, the ideal situation is that Mac is sitting for at least the first several games - maybe a quarter of the season or so. Shave off the risk associated with #3. Buy Mac more time to gel with the team, more time in the film room and in Josh's hip pocket. Save him the hits from the tough, pass rushing defenses of Miami, New Orleans, and Tampa.
Cam seems to be playing well enough right now that I don't think you're losing much, if anything, by playing him for the first few games of the season. And doing that provides real, tangible benefits. Plus, while Belichick certainly prefers winning to losing, he's never worried overmuch about starting out 2-2 or whatever. This schedule starts out pretty rough. My expectation is that we're likely to come out of the gate 2-2 regardless of who is starting. Decent shot at 3-1, small (but definitely non-zero) chance of 1-3 or 4-0. If Cam plays well, we win one extra game in that span. If he plays badly, maybe lose one we should win (or maybe the defense salvages it anyway!)...but we're freer to make the switch with fewer problems from Cam or the locker room. With the expanded playoffs, I expect 10-7 to get into the playoffs. Given the rest of the schedule, the defense, the running game, and the ball control nature of the offense, 9-4 is very realistic the rest of the way.
Buy Mac some more time to absorb...everything. Give Cam time to showcase himself, and get his head around being a backup and mentor to a kid who clearly has him outgunned. Save Mac some wear and tear.
Play for December and January. And February. Because after all...
This. Is. Foxborough!
Bravo indeed, sir.
I am a fan of both. I have seen all of Mac's games and I have seen all of Cam's games. They are similar and different that makes them good at what they do.
I wish nothing but the best for Cam and will continue to watch how he does. He is not a selfish player, never has been. Neither is Mac.
So, we move on to the Mac era and see if he does indeed make the transaction from college to the NFL. I think he will be able to handle it.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 29,156
- Reaction score
- 9,498
- Points
- 113