This is now: BB and the direction of the Patriots

[BaseballJones]

Great post @NobodyInteresting . I don't know how much of it is "luck" but I do know that they've been in lots of close games that easily could have gone the other way, and if they had just won 3 of those (they didn't, so it's moot, but still) they'd be at 6-7 right now, which is still yuck, but not catastrophically bad.

And they've done so poorly at generating turnovers and turning those into points...if that changed just a little, this season would look and feel a lot different. They wouldn't be *good*, but they'd be...not horrific.

 

[BaseballJones]

Missing Hightower in 2012.

2013-present 126 total AV on 7 guys (excl. Gonzalez), or 18 per player.

2001-2012 709 AV on 12 guys, or 59 per player (will go higher when you add Hightower).

Edit: Hightower's 76 brings the total to 785 on 13 guys, or 60 per player.

The drafting has been a mess for 10 years.

This conversation isn't about recent drafting. It's about which player is the biggest bust. And keep in mind that guys drafted more recently have only been playing a short time, so of course their AV numbers are going to be lower. But yes, BB was great at drafting in the first half of his time here, less so recently.

 

[tims4wins]

Great post @NobodyInteresting . I don't know how much of it is "luck" but I do know that they've been in lots of close games that easily could have gone the other way, and if they had just won 3 of those (they didn't, so it's moot, but still) they'd be at 6-7 right now, which is still yuck, but not catastrophically bad.

And they've done so poorly at generating turnovers and turning those into points...if that changed just a little, this season would look and feel a lot different. They wouldn't be *good*, but they'd be...not horrific.

I'd argue the opposite, that their defense and special teams scores were quite fluky and not something to be relied on and it led to wins they didn't necessarily deserve. So this year it has regressed (beyond) the mean. So they could probably have a couple more wins this year, and they should have had a couple fewer wins last year. They overall record of 11-19 is about right.

 

[tims4wins]

This conversation isn't about recent drafting. It's about which player is the biggest bust. And keep in mind that guys drafted more recently have only been playing a short time, so of course their AV numbers are going to be lower. But yes, BB was great at drafting in the first half of his time here, less so recently.

Hence why I moved it to the BB thread.

 

[BaseballJones]

I'd argue the opposite, that their defense and special teams scores were quite fluky and not something to be relied on and it led to wins they didn't necessarily deserve. So this year it has regressed (beyond) the mean. So they could probably have a couple more wins this year, and they should have had a couple fewer losses last year. They overall record of 11-19 is about right.

That's true. They were exceptional last year and not good at all with this this year.

 

[BaseballJones]

Hence why I moved it to the BB thread.

Oh haha I didn't even notice that we were talking about it in the BB thread. LOL my bad.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

lol

View: https://youtu.be/vH_uU5T-kS8?si=uWfhK5gN0sWAAUFZ

 

[cornwalls@6]

Need any help with those goalposts Tommy?

 

[Justthetippett]

What an idiot. Pretty clear (as many have said) that he has no idea and is not reporting anything. He's speculating and opionating. A win over the Broncos is going to make the Krafts change course? Sure, Tom.

 

[Beomoose]

I really hate the idea of Jonathan Kraft grabbing the reins and turning full Failson, but I should probably expect it.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

I really hate the idea of Jonathan Kraft grabbing the reins and turning full Failson, but I should probably expect it.

Do we have any objective evidence that JK is as worthless as Donald Trump, Jr.? Or is this basically projection and speculation in action?

 

[Beomoose]

Do we have any objective evidence that JK is as worthless as Donald Trump, Jr.? Or is this basically projection and speculation in action?

I'm not predicting, just reacting to the theory from up-thread. Without getting my account drop-kicked through the goalpost of life, there's enough Failsons across human history that we have to be prepared for that outcome.

 

[4 6 3 DP]

The mental gymnatics necessary to suggest that this team has only been unlucky, and they really aren't that bad is the same kind of gymnastics that says Chaim Bloom was really good at his job and its just bad injury luck that Yu Chang and Adalberto Mondesi weren't able to carry the Sox to a playoff spot.

I love this board, it's been a place I have turned to on the regular for the last 25 years of my life, more than half of it. This place was full of people who lived and died with every pitch, who wrote a book about their loved ones and who they wanted to dedicate a world series victory to, and now it's dominated by contrarians who want to spin statistics to prove that bad teams aren't really bad.

I enjoy the viewpoint. But it's tiring.

(I wouldn't fire Bill, because I'm sentimental, and 20 years from now I'll miss seeing him coach even if it costs them another year of development and because when he leaves the last tie to 20 absolutely amazing years will be gone, just like I wish Larry Bird had played in 1993 even if he was terrible, because it would be another year of one of my heroes. But that's sentimental.)

 

[j-man]

Gibbs is an all time great coach but 2 of the 3 SB wins came in years impacted by strikes/lockouts 1982 and 1987.

gibbs is a all time great coach but his 82 and 87 super bowls play off diff with 2 plays
82 if miami stops riggins on that 4th and 1 miami wins
87 denver played out of their mind the first 10 min got up 10-0 wash fumbled on kickoff had denver recovd it denver wins by 10-17 points

 

[j-man]

if mrkraft wanted my advice here what i wouild say
QB if u can get C Williams or J Fiedls chi do it otherwise sign jimmy g to a 1 year deal and draft a QB in the first 3 rouns
RB Steveion its a good player just need a speed back for a 1-2 combo
WR need a reset here olay douglas and maybe bouie are keepers here needs 2 offseasons to fix
te re sign heary if price gets too high draft a pass catching te and sign a blocking te in fa
OL u need new OT and re-sign owenu
DL u have great run stuffers but no guy that can rush the passer
LB judon couild be more heipful as a trade chip other than that u jush need more pop
CB u need a stong num 2 cb with hill g willion diggs waddle in u div
S your best spot u have too much lol
K new k
p new P

Honely only gonalez and maybe jodon owenu heary dugger are on your next super bowl roster u need around 15 of through guys and u only have 5-7

 

[NobodyInteresting]

The mental gymnatics necessary to suggest that this team has only been unlucky, and they really aren't that bad is the same kind of gymnastics that says Chaim Bloom was really good at his job and its just bad injury luck that Yu Chang and Adalberto Mondesi weren't able to carry the Sox to a playoff spot.

I love this board, it's been a place I have turned to on the regular for the last 25 years of my life, more than half of it. This place was full of people who lived and died with every pitch, who wrote a book about their loved ones and who they wanted to dedicate a world series victory to, and now it's dominated by contrarians who want to spin statistics to prove that bad teams aren't really bad.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue they haven't been bad this year - I for one have explicitly said that they have - and if that's what you're taking from those posts then with respect I think you're not understanding them very well. (also - "Dominated by"? Is that how you really feel? That isn't the feeling I get reading these boards at all). Those of us who are throwing statistics out there aren't trying to spin anything. We are just pushing back on the narrative that;

a) the Pats have been bad for 4 years now.
b) this year the Pats have been absolutely terrible in every aspect and there's no quality anywhere on the roster
and therefore c) 4 years of bad play culminating in this year of terrible play means Bill must be fired.

The numbers simply don't back that first assertion up. When I say the Pat's DVOA in 2021 was more positive than their DVOA in 2023 is negative this year I'm not trying to spin anything. That's just a fact. If I point out that over this apparently awful four year period the Pats have outscored their opponents I'm not trying to spin anything. That's just a fact. I'm not interested in mental gymnastics, i'm just interested in the reality.

This year Win-Loss record has been really bad but win-loss record is a pretty blunt tool and it's worth looking deeper. When you do so things look somewhat less bad. That's all.

So yeah, the results haven't been as desired. Sometimes that happens because you're bad, and sometimes it happens because you're unlucky, and sometimes it happens because you're bad and unlucky. I think the evidence says that this season has been in that last category. If you or anyone else has evidence that that's not the case I'm all ears.

Do other people think 3-10 is a fair reflection of how they've played this year?

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

3-10 seems like a fair reflection of how they have played. Could have won several games they lost, but also could have lost every game that they have won. Worst PF, 4th worst point differential.

 

[Cabin Mirror]

As someone once said, "you are what your record says you are."

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I'm not predicting, just reacting to the theory from up-thread. Without getting my account drop-kicked through the goalpost of life, there's enough Failsons across human history that we have to be prepared for that outcome.

Again, I can't push back on this enough. Jonathan Kraft has had as much to do with this organizations success as Bob Kraft himself, IMO. And frankly, there's a lot of folks close to the organization that feel the same way, both publicly and privately.

Jonathan is the chairman of the board of Massachusetts General Hospital, and has been since like 2019. He's been on their board since 2010, and replaced Cathy Minehan as President, who was the President and Chairman of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank.

I've shit on members of boards before, particularly in private industry, but hospital boards, especially non-profit teaching hospitals like MGH are a different animal. He's on a number of other boards as well, but MGH is a beast and if there was any controversy about his stewardship, it would be national news. What's happened with the Patriots as an organization (forget on the field) since the Krafts took over is unquestionable.

To even put him in the same breath as a failson like DJT Jr. is complete and total insanity and undersells him to a degree that's impossible to overstate. Could he fail as he "takes over" for Robert (I put that in quotes, because IMO, he already has in every way, except as the public face of the franchise)? Absolutely, but it isn't because he hasn't earned the role on his own merits, IMO.

 

[Beomoose]

Again, I can't push back on this enough. Jonathan Kraft has had as much to do with this organizations success as Bob Kraft himself, IMO. And frankly, there's a lot of folks close to the organization that feel the same way, both publicly and privately.

Jonathan is the chairman of the board of Massachusetts General Hospital, and has been since like 2019. He's been on their board since 2010, and replaced Cathy Minehan as President, who was the President and Chairman of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank.

I've shit on members of boards before, particularly in private industry, but hospital boards, especially non-profit teaching hospitals like MGH are a different animal. He's on a number of other boards as well, but MGH is a beast and if there was any controversy about his stewardship, it would be national news. What's happened with the Patriots as an organization (forget on the field) since the Krafts took over is unquestionable.

To even put him in the same breath as a failson like DJT Jr. is complete and total insanity and undersells him to a degree that's impossible to overstate. Could he fail as he "takes over" for Robert (I put that in quotes, because IMO, he already has in every way, except as the public face of the franchise)? Absolutely, but it isn't because he hasn't earned the role on his own merits, IMO.

I didn't.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

I’d bring BB back for another season, since I figure it’s best to know for sure that he’s washed up as a GM/Coach than be left wondering if he had one last rabbit to pull out of his hat. Lots of coaches have had a few down years then rebounded.

That being said, it may be the GM part of the equation that’s the deal breaker here. The O is just so damn awful, and there’s almost nothing there to build on.

To me BB’s failure on O goes back to the off-season following 2018 when he barely tried to replace Gronk. That led to the 2 TE draft disaster. And we’ve seen that pattern repeated at other offensive spots for 5 years running.

If the Krafts have completely lost faith in Bill’s ability to build an O then I kinda get a decision to move on.

But again, I’d keep him for 2024.

This is where I’m at. I think there’s an argument the game has passed him by, but I’d rather bring him back and know for sure. Particularly if he can get (and accept) some much needed assistance on the drafting side.

 

[GPO Man]

So the team the Patriots got shutout by just gave up 63 to the Raiders? Not a good look for Bill. Yikes.

 

[Pandemonium67]

The effort to contain Zappe wore out their D.

And we held LV to 21, which makes Bill look good.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I don't think anyone is trying to argue they haven't been bad this year - I for one have explicitly said that they have - and if that's what you're taking from those posts then with respect I think you're not understanding them very well. (also - "Dominated by"? Is that how you really feel? That isn't the feeling I get reading these boards at all). Those of us who are throwing statistics out there aren't trying to spin anything. We are just pushing back on the narrative that;

a) the Pats have been bad for 4 years now.
b) this year the Pats have been absolutely terrible in every aspect and there's no quality anywhere on the roster
and therefore c) 4 years of bad play culminating in this year of terrible play means Bill must be fired.

The numbers simply don't back that first assertion up. When I say the Pat's DVOA in 2021 was more positive than their DVOA in 2023 is negative this year I'm not trying to spin anything. That's just a fact. If I point out that over this apparently awful four year period the Pats have outscored their opponents I'm not trying to spin anything. That's just a fact. I'm not interested in mental gymnastics, i'm just interested in the reality.

This year Win-Loss record has been really bad but win-loss record is a pretty blunt tool and it's worth looking deeper. When you do so things look somewhat less bad. That's all.

So yeah, the results haven't been as desired. Sometimes that happens because you're bad, and sometimes it happens because you're unlucky, and sometimes it happens because you're bad and unlucky. I think the evidence says that this season has been in that last category. If you or anyone else has evidence that that's not the case I'm all ears.

Do other people think 3-10 is a fair reflection of how they've played this year?

Yes it is a more than fair reflection of how they’ve played. The 30-40 record since late 2019 is also a fair reflection of the state of the team as well. I’ve gone over the drafting and FA missteps, but let’s also bring up all of the mistakes and self-inflicted penalties they’ve had over the last couple years as well. This is not a particularly well-coached team anymore. You can look at DVOA all you want and I am one to embrace analytics, but my eyes tell me what I need to know on this one and it is time for a change.

 

[rodderick]

I don't think anyone is trying to argue they haven't been bad this year - I for one have explicitly said that they have - and if that's what you're taking from those posts then with respect I think you're not understanding them very well. (also - "Dominated by"? Is that how you really feel? That isn't the feeling I get reading these boards at all). Those of us who are throwing statistics out there aren't trying to spin anything. We are just pushing back on the narrative that;

a) the Pats have been bad for 4 years now.
b) this year the Pats have been absolutely terrible in every aspect and there's no quality anywhere on the roster
and therefore c) 4 years of bad play culminating in this year of terrible play means Bill must be fired.

The numbers simply don't back that first assertion up. When I say the Pat's DVOA in 2021 was more positive than their DVOA in 2023 is negative this year I'm not trying to spin anything. That's just a fact. If I point out that over this apparently awful four year period the Pats have outscored their opponents I'm not trying to spin anything. That's just a fact. I'm not interested in mental gymnastics, i'm just interested in the reality.

This year Win-Loss record has been really bad but win-loss record is a pretty blunt tool and it's worth looking deeper. When you do so things look somewhat less bad. That's all.

So yeah, the results haven't been as desired. Sometimes that happens because you're bad, and sometimes it happens because you're unlucky, and sometimes it happens because you're bad and unlucky. I think the evidence says that this season has been in that last category. If you or anyone else has evidence that that's not the case I'm all ears.

Do other people think 3-10 is a fair reflection of how they've played this year?

They are tied for the third worst record with the fourth worst point differential, so yes.

 

[lexrageorge]

Do other people think 3-10 is a fair reflection of how they've played this year?

I think it's a perfectly fair reflection given the state of the team's offense, which is one of the easiest in the league to defend against.

Their DVOA rating takes into account their close losses. They had 7 one score losses and 3 beat downs this season, and the close games were due to their defense. I know some here dismiss the quality of their defense, but it is clearly in the upper half of the league by every rating and the eye test. I'm not about to call their defense elite, but it consistently keeps the team in games despite missing several key players and despite in many cases getting zero help from the offense.

But the offense remains a tire fire, and their record reflects that.

 

[Archer1979]

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but...

Just took a quick look as the point differential is somewhat misleading due to the blowout losses to the Cowboys and the Saints. Had the Pats offense scored just one touchdown more a game, they would be playing for home field advantage in the playoffs. You've got to think that a competent QB would have made up that difference.

 

[Was (Not Wasdin)]

The Chargers look like they have quit on Staley. He has to go. Maybe it is rose colored glasses, but I don't see the Pats as having quit on BB. There may be players who are not good enough to carry out their assignments the way they should, but I dont see the quit yet. That would be the end for me, and I'm not there yet.

 

[lexrageorge]

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but...

Just took a quick look as the point differential is somewhat misleading due to the blowout losses to the Cowboys and the Saints. Had the Pats offense scored just one touchdown more a game, they would be playing for home field advantage in the playoffs. You've got to think that a competent QB would have made up that difference.

Maybe. Sometimes the game plans and end game strategy impact the score in ways so that it's not possible to say "If only the Pats scored one more TD in each game...". Realistically, they would likely be 6-7.

Also, the offense is really, really bad across the board. They couldn't score worth shit against the Colts, Chargers, Giants, and Commanders, who happen to make up 4 of the league's worst scoring defenses. QB play is a big part of it, but OL and WR and TE all need major upgrades before this team can even think about sniffing a playoff spot.

 

[BaseballJones]

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but...

Just took a quick look as the point differential is somewhat misleading due to the blowout losses to the Cowboys and the Saints. Had the Pats offense scored just one touchdown more a game, they would be playing for home field advantage in the playoffs. You've got to think that a competent QB would have made up that difference.

Seven points a game is a LOT though. They've been a losing team this year, doing just enough to stay close but lose.

That said, I agree with you on the point differential. Two years ago, the Pats were #6 in points scored but I was told over and over that that's not really a fair evaluation because they had three massive scoring days against bad teams (54 vs NYJ, 45 vs Cle, 50 vs Jax), which skewed their numbers.

Well ok, fine, but then these numbers you pointed out also skew the numbers. It works both ways.

So they've played teams, on the whole, much closer than their record indicates, BUT....I mean....they are 3-10. They have NOT won those games. They've found ways to lose. They deserve every bit of that 3-10 record.

I *do* think it means that there's probably more to work with than some others think, but nonetheless....3-10 is 3-10 and there's no way around it.

 

[tims4wins]

It's kind of an interesting thought experiment. Say they had found a way to win 3 more games to this point. Maybe they beat the Chargers 7-6. Maybe they beat the Giants 13-10. And maybe they beat the Colts or the Commanders or Vegas by a FG.

Would anyone feel at all better about the position of the franchise?

Where I'm going with this is that for those of us who are ready to move on, it's not simply because they are 3-10.

 

[Van Everyman]

It's kind of an interesting thought experiment. Say they had found a way to win 3 more games to this point. Maybe they beat the Chargers 7-6. Maybe they beat the Giants 13-10. And maybe they beat the Colts or the Commanders or Vegas by a FG.

Would anyone feel at all better about the position of the franchise?

Where I'm going with this is that for those of us who are ready to move on, it's not simply because they are 3-10.

In that case, I think people would still feel like the talent is poor but maybe a little better about how BB has them playing. So, different but not much different.

 

[BaseballJones]

It's kind of an interesting thought experiment. Say they had found a way to win 3 more games to this point. Maybe they beat the Chargers 7-6. Maybe they beat the Giants 13-10. And maybe they beat the Colts or the Commanders or Vegas by a FG.

Would anyone feel at all better about the position of the franchise?

Where I'm going with this is that for those of us who are ready to move on, it's not simply because they are 3-10.

I think a lot of people would feel different if the Pats were presently 6-7 or 7-6, yeah. 3-10 has them basically at the bottom of the entire NFL. That looks and feels so so terrible. At 6-7 or 7-6 they're still playing for the playoffs, and they sure feel competitive, and there's hope. People (some, not all) would think, oh man if Judon and Gonzo were healthy...or, man with just a couple of tweaks they could be 9-4. But at 3-10, it feels like a total overhaul is necessary.

 

[DJnVa]

I’d bring BB back for another season, since I figure it’s best to know for sure that he’s washed up as a GM/Coach than be left wondering if he had one last rabbit to pull out of his hat. Lots of coaches have had a few down years then rebounded.

That being said, it may be the GM part of the equation that’s the deal breaker here. The O is just so damn awful, and there’s almost nothing there to build on.

To me BB’s failure on O goes back to the off-season following 2018 when he barely tried to replace Gronk. That led to the 2 TE draft disaster. And we’ve seen that pattern repeated at other offensive spots for 5 years running.

If the Krafts have completely lost faith in Bill’s ability to build an O then I kinda get a decision to move on.

But again, I’d keep him for 2024.

There's talk that this was the original plan. BB would coach this year and next year, and hand it off to Mayo. But the organization wasn't prepared for the shitshow that ensued and that has Kraft thinking of moving up the timeline. I'd guess there's a chance that BB lays out a draft plan after the season that makes Kraft stick to that plan. We'll see.

 

[joe dokes]

It's kind of an interesting thought experiment. Say they had found a way to win 3 more games to this point. Maybe they beat the Chargers 7-6. Maybe they beat the Giants 13-10. And maybe they beat the Colts or the Commanders or Vegas by a FG.

Would anyone feel at all better about the position of the franchise?

I would, because the competition is the teams in the league now, not the Patriots of 10 years ago. And right now, there are not a lot of teams that are consistently really good.

 

[Archer1979]

Seven points a game is a LOT though. They've been a losing team this year, doing just enough to stay close but lose.

That said, I agree with you on the point differential. Two years ago, the Pats were #6 in points scored but I was told over and over that that's not really a fair evaluation because they had three massive scoring days against bad teams (54 vs NYJ, 45 vs Cle, 50 vs Jax), which skewed their numbers.

Well ok, fine, but then these numbers you pointed out also skew the numbers. It works both ways.

So they've played teams, on the whole, much closer than their record indicates, BUT....I mean....they are 3-10. They have NOT won those games. They've found ways to lose. They deserve every bit of that 3-10 record.

I *do* think it means that there's probably more to work with than some others think, but nonetheless....3-10 is 3-10 and there's no way around it.

To the bolded... Is it really though, especially considering how few points they've scored. It's one trip to the red zone a game that gets converted and they have had opportunities. Granted its a hypothetical like Crash Davis in Bull Durham saying that one hit a week is the difference between a journeyman and a superstar. But in this case, with the defense being as good as it has been, its really the difference in the offense being a journeyman as opposed to being DFA'ed.

As far as you being what your record says you are... 100% agreed. But this isn't the case of a bunch of things being wrong. There is some low-hanging fruit out there, that if corrected, makes this a good team as long as the defense can sustain its performance.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Remember the first half of the season, when most folks thought Mac was fine and just being held back by a terrible line, WR room, coaches, etc. It’s sort of weird how quickly everything shifted.

 

[rodderick]

Seven points a game is a LOT though. They've been a losing team this year, doing just enough to stay close but lose.

That said, I agree with you on the point differential. Two years ago, the Pats were #6 in points scored but I was told over and over that that's not really a fair evaluation because they had three massive scoring days against bad teams (54 vs NYJ, 45 vs Cle, 50 vs Jax), which skewed their numbers.

Well ok, fine, but then these numbers you pointed out also skew the numbers. It works both ways.

So they've played teams, on the whole, much closer than their record indicates, BUT....I mean....they are 3-10. They have NOT won those games. They've found ways to lose. They deserve every bit of that 3-10 record.

I *do* think it means that there's probably more to work with than some others think, but nonetheless....3-10 is 3-10 and there's no way around it.

They've scored 10 points per game in losses. Take out the Cowboys and Saints games and they've scored 12.6 ppg in their other losses. It's a fair evaluation because they are a bad team due to their horrid offense and they've lost close games due to having a horrid offense. The 2021 Patriots scoring 50 against the dregs of the league wasn't a fair representation of how good they actually were offensively, the 2023 Patriots losing 38-3 to Dallas is a fair representation of how bad they are offensively, considering they scored 7 points or fewer in four other losses and 17 points or fewer in eight other losses. And the shitty offense is 90% of the reason for their record.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

To the bolded... Is it really though, especially considering how few points they've scored. It's one trip to the red zone a game that gets converted and they have had opportunities. Granted its a hypothetical like Crash Davis in Bull Durham saying that one hit a week is the difference between a journeyman and a superstar. But in this case, with the defense being as good as it has been, its really the difference in the offense being a journeyman as opposed to being DFA'ed.

As far as you being what your record says you are... 100% agreed. But this isn't the case of a bunch of things being wrong. There is some low-hanging fruit out there, that if corrected, makes this a good team as long as the defense can sustain its performance.

I mean, yes 7 points per game is a lot. They are last in the league in points per game, if they scored 7 more per game they would jump 9 teams, that's significant.

The offense is really bad. The points per game stat isn't fluky, it is a reflection of how bad they actually are.

What's the low hanging fruit that, if corrected, makes this a good team? They have no QB, no receivers, shitty RBs, a bad offensive line and one mediocre tight end. How do you make this offense at least middle of the pack without a complete overhaul of the roster?

 

[Jimbodandy]

What's the low hanging fruit that, if corrected, makes this a good team? They have no QB, no receivers, shitty RBs, a bad offensive line and one mediocre tight end. How do you make this offense at least middle of the pack without a complete overhaul of the roster?

You draft a top QB, an X receiver, and a proper OT (and preferably sign another OT). That can basically be done with their first three picks in this draft without trading anything. The draft is deep at all three positions.

With a decent X, a QB who can throw, and an offensive line who can protect, those receivers that don't exist suddenly have space to operate and balls to catch. Sure it won't make them a top offense, but it's pretty easy to jump to "not ass" with high picks in this draft.

 

[j44thor]

NE is last in red zone atts at 26 but 13th in red zone TD% at 57% which is likely not sustainable considering they currently rank above KC and DAL for example.
If anything this team should be averaging a pt or two less per game when you normalize the red zone TD%. Where they get this magical +7 per game from is beyond me and not representative of the offense. NYJ on the other hand have an anemic 34% red zone TD % if one team should be averaging an extra TD per game it would be them.

 

[Silverdude2167]

You draft a top QB, an X receiver, and a proper OT (and preferably sign another OT). That can basically be done with their first three picks in this draft without trading anything. The draft is deep at all three positions.

With a decent X, a QB who can throw, and an offensive line who can protect, those receivers that don't exist suddenly have space to operate and balls to catch. Sure it won't make them a top offense, but it's pretty easy to jump to "not ass" with high picks in this draft.

It's why I want to keep BB, there is a very quick path to the playoffs if you have good coaching.

 

[Jimbodandy]

NE is last in red zone atts at 26 but 13th in red zone TD% at 57% which is likely not sustainable considering they currently rank above KC and DAL for example.
If anything this team should be averaging a pt or two less per game when you normalize the red zone TD%. Where they get this magical +7 per game from is beyond me and not representative of the offense. NYJ on the other hand have an anemic 34% red zone TD % if one team should be averaging an extra TD per game it would be them.

Honestly that's not hard for me to understand. Most teams hit the red zone and see their playbook shrink to only plays that fit that space. On their own 20, they can run, short pass, go deep, etc. But when the deep ball is off the table, they become more predictable, hence the drop in efficiency.

With this Pats team, the deep ball is off the table wherever they are. So their drop in efficiency in the red zone is not material.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

You draft a top QB, an X receiver, and a proper OT (and preferably sign another OT). That can basically be done with their first three picks in this draft without trading anything. The draft is deep at all three positions.

With a decent X, a QB who can throw, and an offensive line who can protect, those receivers that don't exist suddenly have space to operate and balls to catch. Sure it won't make them a top offense, but it's pretty easy to jump to "not ass" with high picks in this draft.

Sure that requires that they hit on all of those draft picks plus the FA signing, something they have not been able to do in recent years.

I'm not saying it is insurmountable, but this team (offense) is bad. Turnarounds can happen quickly in the NFL and the route you outlined is a pathway, but I wouldn't call it low hanging fruit.

 

[astrozombie]

The "if they only scored 7 more points per game" is in the same league as "well if they had an average QB, they are a playoff team, easily". First off, it's all theoretical and not provable, so anything goes. Second, if it was that simple, I would assume BB would have at least tried to do it.

 

[Jimbodandy]

Sure that requires that they hit on all of those draft picks plus the FA signing, something they have not been able to do in recent years.

I'm not saying it is insurmountable, but this team (offense) is bad. Turnarounds can happen quickly in the NFL and the route you outlined is a pathway, but I wouldn't call it low hanging fruit.

I'm an outlier in thinking that they need two tackles, but everyone agrees that they need one I think. And sure, they can miss on their picks. But I'm saying that the mess that's this offense can be improved substantially by slotting in three guys. Parker/Douglas/Bourne aren't killing you at receiver if you have a real X opening things up. Henry and Gesicki aren't bad TEs, they're just not capable of creating offense out of thin air. The guards and center are fine. The problem is horrid tackle play, zero time/space for the QB to throw, and terrible decisions and throws even when he does have time, and a southern California traffic jam anywhere the receivers want to go because nobody is concerned whatsoever about being beaten deep. Three guys fix this. And we can get those three guys at #2, #35, and #66 without reaching. We all know that there will be at least 2 franchise QBs available at #2. There will almost certainly be legit Xs at 35, and there are 8-10 starting OTs in the top-100.

 

[astrozombie]

It's why I want to keep BB, there is a very quick path to the playoffs if you have good coaching.

They drafted a QB with a top 15 pick (who in some circles was being viewed with the third pick, though th guy drafted there incidentally also flamed out) in 21 and signed a whole bunch of free agents, including multiple pass catchers. BB took that and turned it into a single playoff appearance as cannon fodder for a legit team, and is looking at a rebuild 2 seasons later. If the idea is that every 3 years, BB drafts a QB, makes the playoffs, gets smoked in said playoffs and then has to redo the whole process over again, I am not sure that is something I want to see.

 

[Silverdude2167]

They drafted a QB with a top 15 pick (who in some circles was being viewed with the third pick, though th guy drafted there incidentally also flamed out) in 21 and signed a whole bunch of free agents, including multiple pass catchers. BB took that and turned it into a single playoff appearance as cannon fodder for a legit team, and is looking at a rebuild 2 seasons later. If the idea is that every 3 years, BB drafts a QB, makes the playoffs, gets smoked in said playoffs and then has to redo the whole process over again, I am not sure that is something I want to see.

That narrative implies that Mac Jones is a good QB. If you believe that, then your point is valid. If you do not, then the rest of it is irrelevant.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Honestly that's not hard for me to understand. Most teams hit the red zone and see their playbook shrink to only plays that fit that space. On their own 20, they can run, short pass, go deep, etc. But when the deep ball is off the table, they become more predictable, hence the drop in efficiency.

With this Pats team, the deep ball is off the table wherever they are. So their drop in efficiency in the red zone is not material.

This is correct.

I just don't understand how folks think simply changing a QB, and adding 7 points gives a team a completely different record. There are so many assumptions there that it's impossible to know. Does this hypothetical average QB go 25-30 and engineer a game winning drive against the Bills, just because they are better than Mac? Do receivers not have balls bounce off their hands into opposing defenders, do they drop more or less wide open passes? Would this QB last a season behind the offensive line?

Houston has 6 losses on the season. In those losses, they've averaged 14.6 points. Does a hypothetical QB who plays better in those games than Stroud automatically turn those into wins? The Chiefs average only 14.4 points in their losses, maybe it's all Mahomes and a better QB would have them at 13-0. The analysis just doesn't work that way. Everything would be different depending on well, everything.

Would the Pats have a better record with better QB play, absolutely. Would this team be in the playoff picture? I sincerely doubt it.

I would much rather have this team right now, where it is, than at 6-7 or 7-6 (as painful as it is to say that, frankly, I wish we were 2-11 or 1-12), and we're all talking about whether Mac can be the guy going forward, or if he's terrible and they need to move on, which was basically the exact conversation we had last year at this time. Now we know he's broken and done, and I just hope BB or whoever leads the team going forward recognizes that Mac and Zappe aren't the only ones. This team blows, top to bottom on offense. I honestly think without BB, this defense would be exposed too, because I still believe he is the greatest mind in the history of the game when it comes to game planning for an opponents offense, but I guess we'll find out next year if BB is gone.

 

[Jimbodandy]

That narrative implies that Mac Jones is a good QB. If you believe that, then your point is valid. If you do not, then the rest of it is irrelevant.

At the end of the day, it's really just a referendum on Bill Belichick clearly. If one has decided that BB lost his fastball completely--or that Bill was always just a guy who had a GOAT QB--then being an advocate for "the whole roster needs to be torn down to the studs" is really omitting the rest of the sentence "and Belichick did this, so he has to be thrown overboard". I'm now convinced of this.