We are harping on the one throw because it was so, incredibly bad
Yep. That was a shit-ass play by Mac. I'm pretty sure my only contribution to the game thread was to bitch at what a crap throw that was. Buuuuuuut.....
and it goes against all of the arguments that have been made that his receivers don't get separation, or they drop it, or the line can't protect him. He got the perfect storm of protection and separation on a throw that was not a bomb, and he didn't even put it close enough that his receiver could get a fingertip. It's just an example of a play where things couldn't have been more perfect and he still screwed it up. It summed up the Mac experience for me.
...this is absurd. Of course receivers get open SOMETIMES (just not as often as every other WR group in the NFL). Of course the OL can hold up for a play here and there (just not as often as every other OL group in the NFL).
Using this one play to arrive at a meaningful conclusion is insane. Literally. It is bereft of rationality.
Mac isn't a very good QB (probably middle of the starter pack as a ceiling, which isn't very good), but he has played decently enough that a better set of players around him would've likely resulted in more wins. How many more? 1? 2? 3? Who knows. But more. Frankly, given the frequency and magnitude of the worst drops, anyone arguing to the contrary is not acting in good faith.
And the thing is, it wouldn't even take a materially better roster to have these extra (1? 2? 3?) wins: just 3-4 fewer drops. Meaning that even if Parker and JuJu and whoever the fuck don't drop massive passes and we get a couple more wins, this team still sucks at OL and WR. And Jesus, those broken tackle numbers are astonishing.
I think the point that DotB has been making is NOT that Mac is great (or even really good), it's just that there is a MASSIVE amount of logically flawed (to be charitable) football "analysis" driving a lot of the discussions on Mac. And logically flawed (to be charitable) football "analysis" deserves to be called out as being exactly that, even if the conclusions reached at the end aren't that dissimilar to what rational football analysis tells us (i.e., Mac isn't very good).
The reason this distinction is important to me (I can't speak for DotB) is that irrational analysis offers no prescriptive insight as to possible fixes going forward. It's just shouting into the ether. It's not interesting, it's not provocative, and it offers no foundation upon which to discuss less black & white options going forward. If this forum was moderated as heavily as the main Red Sox forum, there'd be about 15 posts in this thread.