Mac Jones-QB-Jaguars

Originally posted by DaleGribble:

Originally posted by 4ML:
Mike was running everything when he was in Denver and got fired in 2008 after series of bad picks and FA pickups and losing 3 games in a row to end the season and lost a playoff berth again.

"He focused on defense in 2007, using two of his four picks for defensive linemen Jarvis Moss and Tim Crowder, neither of whom has been much of a factor. Also of late, he wasted a third-round pick on Maurice Clarett (2005), spent millions on Travis Henry (2007), never got anything from Boss Bailey, Niko Koutouvides and Dewayne Robertson (2008)."

After 14yrs 2 Super Bowl Victories and becoming the winningest coach in franchise history seems like a pretty successful run to me.

Never said it wasn't successful. I am just saying why he was fired. For not listening to FO and owner and drafting players who were bust.

Also - never won after Elway retired. So, you need an elite elite QB to win in the NFL. Mike should know this better than most.

Acura cake = Mac Jones
Ferrari cake= Trey/Fields
Satan= 49ers fans

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by DaleGribble:

Originally posted by 4ML:
Mike was running everything when he was in Denver and got fired in 2008 after series of bad picks and FA pickups and losing 3 games in a row to end the season and lost a playoff berth again.

"He focused on defense in 2007, using two of his four picks for defensive linemen Jarvis Moss and Tim Crowder, neither of whom has been much of a factor. Also of late, he wasted a third-round pick on Maurice Clarett (2005), spent millions on Travis Henry (2007), never got anything from Boss Bailey, Niko Koutouvides and Dewayne Robertson (2008)."

After 14yrs 2 Super Bowl Victories and becoming the winningest coach in franchise history seems like a pretty successful run to me.

I'm betting he'll be HOF nominee sometime in the near future. If he was advising Kyle, I'm good with that, versus some coach like Mooch or Erickson who's won *nothing* important in the NFL in my opinion.

I'd rather someone with a history of scouting, evaluating and developing QBs be the one to advise Kyle. Mike Shanahan was a good head coach, but that doesn't mean he's good at projecting what a college QB can do in the pros.

Originally posted by SD49er:

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

Originally posted by SD49er:
This narrative is so played out. Whether receivers were open does not change Jones' pre-snap reads, pocket presence, ability to climb or adjust in the pocket, quickly process and move through reads, and delivery of incredibly accurate balls. Lawrence and Fields have both had tons of talent around them (see Joe Burrows). The tape does not show these receivers bailing Jones out, it shows Jones delivering amazing balls. The reciprocal argument is Jones made the receivers look all world because of his elite level of play. Why doesn't it work both ways? Tua didn't make the wrs look this good. Smith's number went way up with Jones from the year before, as did everyone's numbers.

Smith's numbers went up because Jeudy and Ruggs were drafted and Waddle missed half the season.

Go look at all of the numbers. Jones threw for more touchdowns and more yards than Tua with less "elite" receivers. Jones had Smith and Waddle for a short time, while Tua had Jeudy, Ruggs, Smith, and Waddle. Najee Harris' receiving numbers also went up. The entire offense played better with less with Jones. The claim that the receivers deserve all the credit, as a reason to discount Jones, is asinine.

Edit: Jones also distributed the ball to more receivers, while Tua primarily threw to his stars.

Maybe Smith, Waddle, and Harris' stats all went up because they were a year older and had a year more of development? Does Mac Jones also get credit for John Metchie's stats going up?

If John Metcie's stats go up next year does that mean that whoever is QB then is better than Mac Jones?

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by SD49er:

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

Originally posted by SD49er:
This narrative is so played out. Whether receivers were open does not change Jones' pre-snap reads, pocket presence, ability to climb or adjust in the pocket, quickly process and move through reads, and delivery of incredibly accurate balls. Lawrence and Fields have both had tons of talent around them (see Joe Burrows). The tape does not show these receivers bailing Jones out, it shows Jones delivering amazing balls. The reciprocal argument is Jones made the receivers look all world because of his elite level of play. Why doesn't it work both ways? Tua didn't make the wrs look this good. Smith's number went way up with Jones from the year before, as did everyone's numbers.

Smith's numbers went up because Jeudy and Ruggs were drafted and Waddle missed half the season.

Go look at all of the numbers. Jones threw for more touchdowns and more yards than Tua with less "elite" receivers. Jones had Smith and Waddle for a short time, while Tua had Jeudy, Ruggs, Smith, and Waddle. Najee Harris' receiving numbers also went up. The entire offense played better with less with Jones. The claim that the receivers deserve all the credit, as a reason to discount Jones, is asinine.

It's the WR's, Harris, the O-line and the OC. Elite across the board. It was set up for practically any 4 star HS QB recruit to succeed . . . and he maximized the opportunity. Jones deserves a lot of credit.

You're point is true. Bama was loaded. The 49ers must factor Jones' talent around him into their evaluation. The issue I have is to completely disregard Jones because of that talent around him. There are tons of plays where Jones delivered a beautiful ball knowing he was about to get rocked. He did not bail - he threw an accurate ball. He was the best qb under pressure of all the top qbs. There are a lot of things to like about him. I do not understand the hate for this guy, especially when there are real flaws with Fields and Lance. Jones is a legitimate first round qb prospect, and if we take him, I expect him to play really well in this system.

Originally posted by Scooper1:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by BSofSF:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by Costanza:
The one comment that Shanahan made in the presser that was kinda revealing was when he said:

"If you were excited about getting one of these guys at 12, you should be excited about getting one at three. It's about whether you get one."

To me that was a subtle way of addressing people questioning why trade up to 3 if you're going to take a guy that might be available at 12....kinda screamed like a defense of taking Mac Jones at 3 to me.

I could be wrong. We'll find out tomorrow.

Agree. I read it the same way.

Me too, but the logic is crap. There is a massive difference in the amount of capital used for the 3 compared with the 12, so there is more margin to withstand a bust if you hang at 12 and get him there. They must love him and/or were convinced that they would be leapfrogged and lose him. That is debatable, but I think Kyle's big picture comment is true -- if you get a 10 year starter you can win with, the overpayment will be insignificant. If it busts, Kyle will likely lose his job and will have to fight the perception that he's not a dinosaur. Should be an interesting drama. I see the Mac criticisms as overstated and think he's going to do well.

NY85 looks at just the player and I look at the system and scheme and how the players fit in the scheme.

Again, the example I use is Nick Mullens. If Kyle can get Nick to be the 2nd overall passing yardage in the history of the NFL (over a 16 game period as a rookie) -- the first being Mahomes. Imagine what he can do with Mac, who's X10 in everything regarding Nick. Mac will be fine.

As for draft value, if the NFL league is composed of 40% undrafted players (somebody correct me if I got the wrong numbers) then any draft pick be it a 1st round pick or a 7th round pick is overvalued at 40%.

How many wins did Nick Mullens getting all of those yards equal??? That stat means absolutely nothing if you can't win games. Kyle also had Alfred Morris running 17-1800 yards with rg3 and the threat of a zone read run. Now imagine Kyle tayloring the offense with a guy that runs like rg3 and throws better than mullens with all of those fancy yards. That would be fields or lance and IMO.

As long as Mullens beat Seadderall, I'm happy. If you can get a win off of Cheat Carrolls defense, that's saying something. I think Mac is athletic enough to run RPO's - but clearly not with the explosiveness of a Fields or Lance - still Mac can execute movement plays (I think) almost as well as Fields or Lance. In other words, (for example) a Boot Keeper play would be a wash. Mac would be able to thread the needle to Kittle and either Fields or Lance would probably get a first down if not more on the ground. What I think Kyle sees in Mac is a Kyle 2.0 out there in the gridiron that can see the defense and get his team the correct mismatches for Kyle's offense to work. Kyle's all about getting mismatches and running plays that wrongfoots the defense -- versus the Greg Roman offense that is much heavier on the QB running the ball and being more of an athlete than a cerebral pass distributor.

Again, any of the 3 can run Kyles offense, just to varying degrees of sophistication. Trey will need a year to get up to NFL speed, Fields has to correct his mechanics and accuracy, and Mac is already pretty ready to run Kyles offense -- he just doesn't have the Wheels that Trey and Fields has.

This is laughable. Fields at #3

Originally posted by LilLeeroy:

Originally posted by SD49er:

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

Originally posted by SD49er:
This narrative is so played out. Whether receivers were open does not change Jones' pre-snap reads, pocket presence, ability to climb or adjust in the pocket, quickly process and move through reads, and delivery of incredibly accurate balls. Lawrence and Fields have both had tons of talent around them (see Joe Burrows). The tape does not show these receivers bailing Jones out, it shows Jones delivering amazing balls. The reciprocal argument is Jones made the receivers look all world because of his elite level of play. Why doesn't it work both ways? Tua didn't make the wrs look this good. Smith's number went way up with Jones from the year before, as did everyone's numbers.

Smith's numbers went up because Jeudy and Ruggs were drafted and Waddle missed half the season.

Go look at all of the numbers. Jones threw for more touchdowns and more yards than Tua with less "elite" receivers. Jones had Smith and Waddle for a short time, while Tua had Jeudy, Ruggs, Smith, and Waddle. Najee Harris' receiving numbers also went up. The entire offense played better with less with Jones. The claim that the receivers deserve all the credit, as a reason to discount Jones, is asinine.

Edit: Jones also distributed the ball to more receivers, while Tua primarily threw to his stars.

Maybe Smith, Waddle, and Harris' stats all went up because they were a year older and had a year more of development? Does Mac Jones also get credit for John Metchie's stats going up?

I think you're right, the individual players get credit too. Mechie did have a really good year in 2020. His numbers went up. I was responding to posts stating that the only reason Jones had a good year was because of the receivers, which to me is lazy analysis and not true. Jones benefitted from his receivers, and his receivers benefitted from Jones. It's both, not one or the other.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Kyle doesn't want to educate a QB. He wants to have a back and forth about the play design and how it is affected by the different looks a defense shows.

I agree. Kyle doesn't want to groom or develop a QB. He wants a guy that can come in right away and be Kirk Cousins. It's the main reason he deferred taking a QB high before in favor of waiting for Cousins. He'd probably prefer to never draft a QB high and instead rely on vets, but they ran out of decent veteran options this year and needed to make a change.

As a result, he's looking purely for the most pro-ready QB that needs the least development. He doesn't care if that player isn't the best or even in the top 3 or 4. He just wants a guy that can step in on day one even if he's just mediocre. He'd pass on having a Mahomes two years from now in favor of having a Matt Schaub today.

He preferred Hoyer over Kaepernick.

We drafting Jones.

We finishing 4th in NFCW next year if Jimmy's gone. Donald and Chandler Jones gonna see if this boy can throw off script that's for sure.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by DaleGribble:

Originally posted by 4ML:
Mike was running everything when he was in Denver and got fired in 2008 after series of bad picks and FA pickups and losing 3 games in a row to end the season and lost a playoff berth again.

"He focused on defense in 2007, using two of his four picks for defensive linemen Jarvis Moss and Tim Crowder, neither of whom has been much of a factor. Also of late, he wasted a third-round pick on Maurice Clarett (2005), spent millions on Travis Henry (2007), never got anything from Boss Bailey, Niko Koutouvides and Dewayne Robertson (2008)."

After 14yrs 2 Super Bowl Victories and becoming the winningest coach in franchise history seems like a pretty successful run to me.

I'm betting he'll be HOF nominee sometime in the near future. If he was advising Kyle, I'm good with that, versus some coach like Mooch or Erickson who's won *nothing* important in the NFL in my opinion.

I'd rather someone with a history of scouting, evaluating and developing QBs be the one to advise Kyle. Mike Shanahan was a good head coach, but that doesn't mean he's good at projecting what a college QB can do in the pros.

Disagree, he evolved Bill Walsh's offense with the outside zone run scheme. He's a head coach that deals with every aspect of football operations from Scouting to actual coaching. The best GM that the 49ers have ever had was John McVay, who was an ex NY Giants football ***COACH*** and Mike kind of serves as (I think) an unofficial assistant GM to John and Adam. Oh by the way, he has 3 super bowl rings and is one of the legitimate heirs to the Walsh offense (Along with Holmgren, Seifert, and Fat Andy).

Blah blah blah blah blah..... Fields at #3

Originally posted by SD49er:

Originally posted by LilLeeroy:

Originally posted by SD49er:

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

Originally posted by SD49er:
This narrative is so played out. Whether receivers were open does not change Jones' pre-snap reads, pocket presence, ability to climb or adjust in the pocket, quickly process and move through reads, and delivery of incredibly accurate balls. Lawrence and Fields have both had tons of talent around them (see Joe Burrows). The tape does not show these receivers bailing Jones out, it shows Jones delivering amazing balls. The reciprocal argument is Jones made the receivers look all world because of his elite level of play. Why doesn't it work both ways? Tua didn't make the wrs look this good. Smith's number went way up with Jones from the year before, as did everyone's numbers.

Smith's numbers went up because Jeudy and Ruggs were drafted and Waddle missed half the season.

Go look at all of the numbers. Jones threw for more touchdowns and more yards than Tua with less "elite" receivers. Jones had Smith and Waddle for a short time, while Tua had Jeudy, Ruggs, Smith, and Waddle. Najee Harris' receiving numbers also went up. The entire offense played better with less with Jones. The claim that the receivers deserve all the credit, as a reason to discount Jones, is asinine.

Edit: Jones also distributed the ball to more receivers, while Tua primarily threw to his stars.

Maybe Smith, Waddle, and Harris' stats all went up because they were a year older and had a year more of development? Does Mac Jones also get credit for John Metchie's stats going up?

I think you're right, the individual players get credit too. Mechie did have a really good year in 2020. His numbers went up. I was responding to posts stating that the only reason Jones had a good year was because of the receivers, which to me is lazy analysis and not true. Jones benefitted from his receivers, and his receivers benefitted from Jones. It's both, not one or the other.

Wow, John Metchie went from 4 to 55 catches and 23 yards to 900+ yards. I'm wondering if you can split the difference and credit 1/2 to Metchie and the other half to Mac?

Here is what I struggle to understand: Kyle loves players who are more than 1 dimensional. He likes people who can lineup at WR one play and RB the next. Maybe TE sometimes. Because it keeps the defense guessing. So why would he settle on a QB who is 1 dimensional? With a QB that at least CAN run, the defense has to respect that. 1 dimensional QB's just make it easier to defend.

need a qb that can constantly throw dimes and run for the first... (ie... Wilson.. Mahomes... Jackson....Allen). In today's NFL... Brady is a unicorn. Trying to draft the next Brady has gotten numerous head coaches and gms fired...

Originally posted by SFrush:

Originally posted by Ezekiel38:
I like Mac a lot. I'd pound the table for him at #12 or in a trade up to 6-9 if Fields was gone.

I just have a hard time passing on Fields for this dude.

Didn't you say you were good with any choice of the three QB's.

I am good with Jones. I think me saying I like Mac a lot above says I'll be good with any of the three QBs.

But I will be super underwhelmed if it's Jones. I think Fields should be the pick.