The Game Goat Thread: Wk.4 vs The GOAT

Big McCorkle

Member
SoSH Member
May 9, 2021
231
Does anyone think EPA is a worthwhile stat? I know nothing about it, but this article, (which I'm pretty sure is terrible despite being posted on another site by a very good football mind who has either guest written or been interviewed on here), says Mac wasn't very good. I find it hard to take the article seriously when they don't mention how bad our running game and offensive line were. And they don't mention that the interception should be equally shared with whoever's butter fingers it slipped off of.

https://slate.com/culture/2021/10/mac-jones-stats-epa-patriots-buccaneers-collinsworth.html
EPA is a great stat.

The author of that article is also dumb and used the wrong EPA number for Jones, i.e. the one that counts the JJ Taylor fumble against him. His actual EPA/play was 0.13, not 0.01-- and those numbers include the sacks he took, and I don't remember any of those sacks really being his fault.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
Does anyone think EPA is a worthwhile stat? I know nothing about it, but this article, (which I'm pretty sure is terrible despite being posted on another site by a very good football mind who has either guest written or been interviewed on here), says Mac wasn't very good. I find it hard to take the article seriously when they don't mention how bad our running game and offensive line were. And they don't mention that the interception should be equally shared with whoever's butter fingers it slipped off of.

https://slate.com/culture/2021/10/mac-jones-stats-epa-patriots-buccaneers-collinsworth.html
I think there's two things being confused around Jones:

1. Was last night's performance (as it occurred) the basis of a good offense? That is what the EPA assessment goes to, and of course the answer is no. If a high percentage of really short throws was a dominant NFL strategy Teddy Bridgewater would be a star, not a usable but fungible NFL player.

2. Given it's his fourth game and facing a good defense, was being able to be "Teddy Bridgewater" level a positive sign or not? I think most of us say the answer to that is yes, on assumption that he (unlike the actual Teddy Bridgewater) will grow into throwing downfield more and has the arm to do so. Reading the D, accuracy, getting the ball out quick are all necessary skills to be a meaningful QB....but they are not in and of themselves sufficient. Still, no other rookie QB is even showing those skills so it's positive even if not yet a finished product
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,397
EPA is a great stat.

The author of that article is also dumb and used the wrong EPA number for Jones, i.e. the one that counts the JJ Taylor fumble against him. His actual EPA/play was 0.13, not 0.01-- and those numbers include the sacks he took, and I don't remember any of those sacks really being his fault.
So Jones actually had a higher EPA than Brady? LOLOLOLOL

Thank you!
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,749
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Just as a point of comparison:
Brady’s last 13 regular season games of 2019:
59.4%, 17 TD : 8 INT, 82.0 rating, 6.2 Y/A

So yeah last night was fairly comparable to 2019. Obviously the weather wasn’t great but Mac put up fine numbers.
Mac put up fine numbers because his average depth of target was five yards and he was throwing against a secondary down four starters. There's a reason his fine numbers translated to 17 points, and that's why box score scouting over a one game sample is useless. Brady wasn't great yesterday, but to say he looked like a guy you'd be ready to move on from is ridiculous hyperbole.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Mac put up fine numbers because his average depth of target was five yards and he was throwing against a secondary down four starters. There's a reason his fine numbers translated to 17 points, and that's why box score scouting over a one game sample is useless. Brady wasn't great yesterday, but to say he looked like a guy you'd be ready to move on from is ridiculous hyperbole.
Yeah I wasn’t ready to move on from him. Just saying his performance was very similar to late 2019. There were reasons for both performances.
 

Big McCorkle

Member
SoSH Member
May 9, 2021
231
PFF grades for the game. Herron once again graded out as trash, Yasir Durant was better when he was put in as a replacement. Bolden putrid in pass protection. On the defensive side, the coverage grades seem weirdly poor, which might have something to do with how they performed when specifically targeted and not the entire body of work.
Capture.PNG

Capture.PNG
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
I don't get the JC Jackson PFF grade at all. He played well on an island against Evans all game and mostly held him from any big gains. And grading Isaiah Wynn as a positive in pass protection is absurd.
 

RoDaddy

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2002
3,245
Albany area, NY
Two unlikely scenarios a quarter of the season in but:
1. Could Scar be lured back for madd money?
2. I also suspect Wynn is hurt - he's better than this - and I remember there were questions about whether he could handle tackle in the NFL so I wonder if he might do better at guard. So maybe Trent Brown to LT, Wynn to LG, and Onwenu to RT?
 
Last edited:

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
Do the OL metrics that suggests the Patriots line has been about average in pass blocking account for the fact that Mac doesn't hold the ball for long?
 
Apr 24, 2019
1,278
Isn't it possible that part of what we're seeing in Wynn-jured is that, in addition to being nicked up, he's being exposed as someone whose warts were covered up, at least somewhat, by playing next to Joe Thuney for his whole career until now?
 

Big McCorkle

Member
SoSH Member
May 9, 2021
231
Isn't it possible that part of what we're seeing in Wynn-jured is that, in addition to being nicked up, he's being exposed as someone whose warts were covered up, at least somewhat, by playing next to Joe Thuney for his whole career until now?
Now he's playing next to Onwenu, so probably not.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
PFF grades for the game. Herron once again graded out as trash, Yasir Durant was better when he was put in as a replacement. Bolden putrid in pass protection. On the defensive side, the coverage grades seem weirdly poor, which might have something to do with how they performed when specifically targeted and not the entire body of work.
View attachment 44883

View attachment 44882
So hard to grade this based on watching at home, but I thought the bottom 3 guys on D, Barmore, Jackson and Dugger, all looked pretty good.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
So hard to grade this based on watching at home, but I thought the bottom 3 guys on D, Barmore, Jackson and Dugger, all looked pretty good.
Yeah, the eye test was way off for me. Judon obviously was terrific both to the eye and PFF. But I thought Mills had another rough day, and apparently he graded out well. It felt like Tampa went after him repeatedly in the second half and made some hay, but I guess it wasn't that bad.

Those linebackers have to get better (or somehow get replaced). Hightower and Van Noy were rough again.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Mac put up fine numbers because his average depth of target was five yards and he was throwing against a secondary down four starters. There's a reason his fine numbers translated to 17 points, and that's why box score scouting over a one game sample is useless. Brady wasn't great yesterday, but to say he looked like a guy you'd be ready to move on from is ridiculous hyperbole.
He looked exactly like the guy that Belichick decided to move on from. That's what I'm saying, and that's not hyperbole, it's what actually happened.

Watching Brady Sunday, there was no part of me that thought the Pats would be better off right now with him at 43 (and taking up 5+ times as much cap space) than they are with Mac at 23. We're good here.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
So hard to grade this based on watching at home, but I thought the bottom 3 guys on D, Barmore, Jackson and Dugger, all looked pretty good.
I thought Jackson got abused by Mike Evans. The 7/75 doesn't look that bad, but a couple bad throws kept it from being much worse. Evans won a bunch of times and Brady missed him.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,991
Newton
He looked exactly like the guy that Belichick decided to move on from. That's what I'm saying, and that's not hyperbole, it's what actually happened.

Watching Brady Sunday, there was no part of me that thought the Pats would be better off right now with him at 43 (and taking up 5+ times as much cap space) than they are with Mac at 23. We're good here.
I think this is an interesting point. I actually felt for most of last season that Brady looked like the exact same guy we had, albeit with much, much better weapons than the 2019 Pats team. The same was true for Sunday night. It kind of reminds me of when Doc Rivers didn’t want to stick around for the Celtics rebuild.

As for Mac, of all the things that people freaked out about after this game—the offensive line, the fumbly running backs, whether BB spent a ton of money on a bunch of average talent in free agency—I feel like the most important thing was that we realized we had a guy under center not necessarily who is the next Brady but actually who isn’t – because he is likely to make more of a roster in transition than Brady ever would’ve. Possibly a lot more.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
I think this is an interesting point. I actually felt for most of last season that Brady looked like the exact same guy we had, albeit with much, much better weapons than the 2019 Pats team. The same was true for Sunday night. It kind of reminds me of when Doc Rivers didn’t want to stick around for the Celtics rebuild.

As for Mac, of all the things that people freaked out about after this game—the offensive line, the fumbly running backs, whether BB spent a ton of money on a bunch of average talent in free agency—I feel like the most important thing was that we realized we had a guy under center not necessarily who is the next Brady but actually who isn’t – because he is likely to make more of a roster in transition than Brady ever would’ve. Possibly a lot more.
This is crazy talk. Mac allows you to spend more money elsewhere for a few years, but Brady is a much better QB, and will likely remain so until he retires. If you drop Brady into this year's team, the team is better, significantly so. Mac is not making more of a roster than Brady... he might allow you to put a better roster around him, which MIGHT make a better overall team.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,991
Newton
This is crazy talk. Mac allows you to spend more money elsewhere for a few years, but Brady is a much better QB, and will likely remain so until he retires. If you drop Brady into this year's team, the team is better, significantly so. Mac is not making more of a roster than Brady... he might allow you to put a better roster around him, which MIGHT make a better overall team.
So … of course? The idea that Brady is the “better quarterback” is not up for debate. What is is whether he elevates the talent around him like he did in 2006, when he had Reche Caldwell, Doug Gabriel and the corpse of Troy Brown.

But 2019 pretty clearly seemed to show that Brady was no longer willing to do the same thing. This was the guy who somewhat famously refused to throw to Harry (perhaps deservedly so).

But what you get with Mac—and don’t really get with Brady anymore—is a guy who is hungry to prove himself with the guys he has – and in so doing is going to help young guys develop into solid role players.

Brady, perhaps understandably, wants star level talent at every position – Fournette but also proven guys like McCoy. Evans but also AB. Gronk too. He doesn’t have any interest or incentive at this point in his career to make the most of an average or below average roster. Mac does because, like Brady 15 years ago, it’s part of his own development and story to prove he’s The Guy.

That’s kind of a long, somewhat squishy explanation. But really that’s all I meant.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
But 2019 pretty clearly seemed to show that Brady was no longer willing to do the same thing. This was the guy who somewhat famously refused to throw to Harry (perhaps deservedly so).
This idea is way, way overblown. Harry got targeted a good amount by Brady when he was on the field. Not as much as Edelman or White, but basically in line with everybody else. He got 14 targets in the final two games that year. The problem, the more Harry got targeted, the worse the offense got, because Harry was and is terrible at football.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
So … of course? The idea that Brady is the “better quarterback” is not up for debate. What is is whether he elevates the talent around him like he did in 2006, when he had Reche Caldwell, Doug Gabriel and the corpse of Troy Brown.

But 2019 pretty clearly seemed to show that Brady was no longer willing to do the same thing. This was the guy who somewhat famously refused to throw to Harry (perhaps deservedly so).

But what you get with Mac—and don’t really get with Brady anymore—is a guy who is hungry to prove himself with the guys he has – and in so doing is going to help young guys develop into solid role players.

Brady, perhaps understandably, wants star level talent at every position – Fournette but also proven guys like McCoy. Evans but also AB. Gronk too. He doesn’t have any interest or incentive at this point in his career to make the most of an average or below average roster. Mac does because, like Brady 15 years ago, it’s part of his own development and story to prove he’s The Guy.

That’s kind of a long, somewhat squishy explanation. But really that’s all I meant.
My point was more that Mac is cheap and young and getting better, and Brady is expensive and old and getting worse. This team isn't winning anything this year with either guy, it's about positioning the team moving forward.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,991
Newton
This idea is way, way overblown. Harry got targeted a good amount by Brady when he was on the field. Not as much as Edelman or White, but basically in line with everybody else. He got 14 targets in the final two games that year. The problem, the more Harry got targeted, the worse the offense got, because Harry was and is terrible at football.
He may well be, but what I don't think is overblown is that Brady wasn't interested in bringing the guy along. It was frustrating that year, but given all the other dynamics at play in the Brady-Belichick relationship at the time, perhaps not unwarranted.
My point was more that Mac is cheap and young and getting better, and Brady is expensive and old and getting worse. This team isn't winning anything this year with either guy, it's about positioning the team moving forward.
Again, I do think there's a little bit of the Doc Rivers' "I'm too old and successful to be wasting my time rebuilding this team" in Brady's decision to leave. And, with Mac, I think he is in some ways, the perfect guy to do it.

One thing that I think got pretty lost in this game--esp. due to the decision to kick--was how Belichick clearly hasn't lost a single MPH off his ability to game plan--and execute a game plan--against elite offenses. Yes, the rain helped a little, as did Gronk being out. And there were some fortunate mistakes by the Bucs. But other than that terrible decision to blitz in the red zone, that was a textbook defensive game plan from Belichick in that it neutralized the opponents' best weapons and almost took the ball out of Brady's hands for long, long stretches to the point where I thought he was handing off to Sony Michel. I mean, it was the "If Thurman Thomas rushes for 100 yards, we win" game all over again (except for the part where Fournette only ran for 91 and we actually lost).
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
He may well be, but what I don't think is overblown is that Brady wasn't interested in bringing the guy along. It was frustrating that year, but given all the other dynamics at play in the Brady-Belichick relationship at the time, perhaps not unwarranted.
If we're talking about "bringing the guy along," the much bigger issue is Harry went on IR with a week-to-week injury (he was already back at practice after getting dinged up in the postseason) so he missed a month and a half of practice. So I would hold Belichick more responsible than Brady for Harry's failure to integrate, but mostly I think Belichick just realized that he got sold a bill of goods on Harry and he can't play.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
If we're talking about "bringing the guy along," the much bigger issue is Harry went on IR with a week-to-week injury (he was already back at practice after getting dinged up in the postseason) so he missed a month and a half of practice. So I would hold Belichick more responsible than Brady for Harry's failure to integrate, but mostly I think Belichick just realized that he got sold a bill of goods on Harry and he can't play.
I’ve been confused on this. Maybe someone can explain it to me. If the play calls for an 8 yard hitch and Harry runs a 7 yard hitch (I remember that being discussed here) how is that on Brady? Why would a QB target a guy who doesn’t run his routes properly? And how should Brady help him? That’s on the WR and offensive coaching staff. Narratives are a dangerous thing. I’m with you on this one.