Can Patriots challenge with run first offense this year?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 5/27/2021 at 8:36 AM, PatsFanNH said:

Wow that was long. Speaking as a Pats fan I expect Newton be the starter for the first 4 weeks and go probably 1-3. They then will go with Mac Jones and hopefully unleash a real passing offense.

 

This aged well.  How are you feeling about it?  I'm kind of like, if you're gonna start the rookie, just plan on it and start the rookie.

It did Allen no good to be #3 through training camp, #2 going into Game 1, then become the starter in the 2nd half of Week 1

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

 

1 hour ago, RichRiderBills said:

 

We cannot escape that the odds of a rookie QB leading his team to the playoffs since the merger is infinitesimal. 

 

The odds of a non mobile running QB pulling it off are even worse.

 

I stand by the stat provided. 

 

Then show your work, please, because it's not a calculation in the article you linked.

 

[RichRiderBills]

8 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

 

Then show your work, please, because it's not a calculation in the article you linked.

 

 

You pull this kind of BS all the time hapless. Someone lays out the framework of an uterrly irrefutable point and you put some arrogant burden on them to lay out the math and act like you've won the point. 

 

I've laid out stats that are accurate and frame in my point. 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, RichRiderBills said:

 

You pull this kind of BS all the time hapless. Someone lays out the framework of an uterrly irrefutable point and you put some arrogant burden on them to lay out the math and act like you've won the point. 

 

"uterrly irrefutable point"

 

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean

 

You said "Since the merger 13 rookie QBs have started a playoff game. 10 have led teams to playoffs, and most of them were fairly pedestrian teams. 

The merger was 51 years ago. 13 dudes total.

By my rough math, thats a .07 % chance for a team to make the playoffs w a rookie QB."

 

Then you said "Nope, the math is not wrong, but there are flaws in it, I’d agree there."

 

So "rough math" with "flaws in it" is now an "irrefutable point" and it's an "arrogant burden" to ask them to explain your calculation.  Too much.

 

I have no idea how you came up with 0.07% chance for a team to make the playoffs with a rookie QB. 

 

I'm trying to be polite and not tell you your math is wrong and you should abandon your argument until I understand what your assumptions were and HOW you calculated that, but since that's apparently an "arrogant burden to lay out the math", OK - your math is wrong, and you should abandon your argument ASAP.

 

12 minutes ago, RichRiderBills said:

I've laid out stats that are accurate and frame in my point.

 

You've laid out nothing.  You've given a number of rookie QBs with more than 7 starts and a time frame, and came up with this 0.07% chance thing, and substituted "argument by insults"  for actually demonstrating the accuracy of your "stat" by explaining it.

 

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

Literally 10 rookie quarterbacks have taken their teams to the playoffs in the past 17 years: Andy Dalton, Andrew Luck, Matt Ryan, Ben Roethlisberger, Russell Wilson, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, Lamar Jackson, Dak Prescott, and RG III. I’d abandon this argument ASAP if I were you.

 

Dave's right, you know.  That's 12 playoff teams x 16 seasons plus 14 playoff teams x 1 season or 206 playoff games in those 17 years.

 

Even without looking at what's probably the correct basis set for calculating odds ("how many rookie QBs have played at least 7 games and NOT gone to the playoffs?"), 10 rookie QBs in playoffs/ 206 playoff games is roughly 5% of playoff games QB'd by rookies in that time frame.

 

Step away from the 0.07% thing.

 

 

[The Dean]

44 minutes ago, RichRiderBills said:

 

You pull this kind of BS all the time hapless. Someone lays out the framework of an uterrly irrefutable point and you put some arrogant burden on them to lay out the math and act like you've won the point. 

 

I've laid out stats that are accurate and frame in my point. 

 

 

 

 

I missed where you stated the number of rookie QBs that started the year with their team, and the number of those QBs who took their teams to the playoffs. That should be a VERY simple calculation. But without both numbers, it's hard to know what the hell is going on, IMO. 

 

I'm not saying that's the best way to judge if Mac has a good or very poor chance of taking the Pats* to the playoffs, since football is a TEAM sport and the QB is only one factor. But at least it would be verifiable. Without every piece of data, it's hard to know.

[1ManRaid]

6 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Literally 10 rookie quarterbacks have taken their teams to the playoffs in the past 17 years: Andy Dalton, Andrew Luck, Matt Ryan, Ben Roethlisberger, Russell Wilson, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, Lamar Jackson, Dak Prescott, and RG III. I’d abandon this argument ASAP if I were you.

 

To be fair, just off the top of my head Lamar Jackson started less than half the games his rookie year.  My argument was more towards day one starters or at least starting most of the games.

[machine gun kelly]

Sounds like some are getting antsy before the game.  Before we go all Inigo Montoya vs. the six fingered man “would you stop saying that”, it’s going to be a fun year.  I’m not predicting any math on Mac jones, but just it’s unlikely as a rookie he leads his team to a record that makes the playoffs.  They may have improved from last year that can win 9-10 games.  I don’t see a rookie beating us twice, the Bucs, the Titans, and the Browns.  I have no doubt Mac can, not will, but can lead to victories against the Jets twice, Panthers, Texans, Jags, and possibly the Falcons.  That’s six wins there you’d expect with a better defense, better weapons at WR and TE, and a solid running game.  I see a lot of high probability throws, and a heave dose of a running game.  
 

Go Bills!

 

I have one stone cold lead pipe irrefutable stat I’ll state with arm arrogance, “I’m a bajillion, trillion, mega million excited for this game today in T Minus 8hrs., 16 minutes”

Edited September 12, 2021 by machine gun kelly

[1ManRaid]

5 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

"uterrly irrefutable point"

 

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean

 

You said "Since the merger 13 rookie QBs have started a playoff game. 10 have led teams to playoffs, and most of them were fairly pedestrian teams. 

The merger was 51 years ago. 13 dudes total.

By my rough math, thats a .07 % chance for a team to make the playoffs w a rookie QB."

 

Then you said "Nope, the math is not wrong, but there are flaws in it, I’d agree there."

 

So "rough math" with "flaws in it" is now an "irrefutable point" and it's an "arrogant burden" to ask them to explain your calculation.  Too much.

 

I have no idea how you came up with 0.07% chance for a team to make the playoffs with a rookie QB. 

 

I'm trying to be polite and not tell you your math is wrong and you should abandon your argument until I understand what your assumptions were and HOW you calculated that, but since that's apparently an "arrogant burden to lay out the math", OK - your math is wrong, and you should abandon your argument ASAP.

 

 

You've laid out nothing.  You've given a number of rookie QBs with more than 7 starts and a time frame, and came up with this 0.07% chance thing, and substituted "argument by insults"  for actually demonstrating the accuracy of your "stat" by explaining it.

 

 

Dave's right, you know.  That's 12 playoff teams x 16 seasons plus 14 playoff teams x 1 season or 206 playoff games in those 17 years.

 

Even without looking at what's probably the correct basis set for calculating odds ("how many rookie QBs have played at least 7 games and NOT gone to the playoffs?"), 10 rookie QBs in playoffs/ 206 playoff games is roughly 5% of playoff games QB'd by rookies in that time frame.

 

Step away from the 0.07% thing.

 

 

 

The closest I came to coming up with 0.07% is if you take the 10 rookies and divide by an approximation of the total team-seasons (like man-hours) ever played, you get approximately 0.7%.  If you were to incorrectly divide the team-seasons into a SINGLE rookie, you then get 0.07%.

 

So I've determined his 0.07% represents if you purely randomly select a random team from a random year in all of history, that's the odds of that team being the one that went to the playoffs with a specific rookie. 

 

But as we've established, you can't use that logic to determine playoff odds in this case of a SINGLE year with a specific team that already has assumed 100% odds of having a rookie QB starting.  If you wanted to stick with the idea of pure randomness, you could look at how many teams are starting rookies this year and compare it to the ratio of teams making the playoffs, or historically you divide the 10 playoff rookies by all the rookies that have ever started.

[RichRiderBills]

Its an accurate representation of % chance an NFL Team since the merger is helmed by a Rookie QB who takes his team to playoffs. 

 

The stat is relevant and is .08% I was wrong about the .07. .07 is for rookies who played 10 or more games. 

 

You want to take number of teams that started rookies, then calculate that number who made the playoffs, fine....that's going to be incredibly low as well. 

 

5% from the last 10 years still sounds high. You have to eliminate a couple guys who were not day 1 starters. I' ve also made the point nearly all of these guys were dual threat.

 

The instances where teams had established starters or where others were chosen to start over the rookie is viable. 

 

The argument is the chance of a rookie QB leading a team to the playoffs is very low. 

 

You guys can spin your wheels about Mac Jones all you want, but that's a fact. 

 

 

 

 

 

[dave mcbride]

4 hours ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

To be fair, just off the top of my head Lamar Jackson started less than half the games his rookie year.  My argument was more towards day one starters or at least starting most of the games.

They were 4-5 before he came in and on a fast train to nowhere. They went 6-1 when he came in.

[RichRiderBills]

50 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

They were 4-5 before he came in and on a fast train to nowhere. They went 6-1 when he came in.

 

You are right, and the stat is 13 QBs have "led" teams to playoffs since merger. 

 

Only 12 of them played 10 or more games.

 

I think about half were "day 1" starters, but would have to deep dive there. 

 

One of the 12 was also Dieter Brock, a 34 year old accomplished CFL QB. 

 

Really when you get down to it , cases that compare to Mac Jones are so rare. 

Edited September 12, 2021 by RichRiderBills

[BigDingus]

As we know first hand, Belichick can scheme with the best of them. Even with a less talented roster, he surely will get the most out of what he has as long as his team isn't turning the ball over. 

 

I think if they can minimize mistakes & turnovers, they will definitely be competitive. He's never had a problem making a game slow & ugly, chewing the clock & dominating time of possession. He's not only good at attacking an opponent's weakness, he's great at masking those of his own team. 

 

We definitely have the more talented roster, but I'm not willing to say McDermott & Co. are the more talented coaching staff. Yet.

[PatsFanNH]

18 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This aged well.  How are you feeling about it?  I'm kind of like, if you're gonna start the rookie, just plan on it and start the rookie.

It did Allen no good to be #3 through training camp, #2 going into Game 1, then become the starter in the 2nd half of Week 1

I’m glad I was wrong.  I think Jones was the better QB in camp. Now to see how things go.. 

[BaaadThingsMan]

Yes and I think they will

[Beast]

2 hours ago, BaaadThingsMan said:

Yes and I think they will

 

Still think that?

[BaaadThingsMan]

32 minutes ago, Beast said:

 

Still think that?

Meh

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

The league is trending pretty hard away from this...a lot of runs go for no gain or a few yards and you still put your qb in a situation where he's gotta make a big play.  I think cams threat to run made their run game a little more dynamic and their run game will struggle a little more now with Mac despite him being the better passer 

[YoloinOhio]

No