SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Recent Posts
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 28, 2023 21:23:28 GMT -5
This also keeps Song on an MLB salary for the maximum amount of time no? And as we've all been saying it's no lock he's ever really an MLB player so it makes total sense for him to try to keep that as long as he can, even if it's maybe slightly sub-optimal for his development. Yeah exactly, this is what I don't get from peoples' reactions here. If you're Song, and you know you need to re-learn how to pitch competitively, would you rather: A - earn a MLB salary, learn from MLB players and coaches, and be a major league baseball player B - go ride the bus in Low-A for a few $ a day and hope to get back to option A in 3 years or so Doesn't seem like a tough choice
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 14, 2023 19:38:54 GMT -5
Not really sure what the point is. If it's "in general, prospects who project to play elite defense at premium positions have a higher floor" sure. If it's "Rafaela has a higher floor than Casas" I disagree - Rafaela playing elite CF defense for half a year in AA is great, but to me what Casas has already shown, at higher levels, is better. If it's that "Rafaela is simply a better prospect than Casas" I completely disagree - I'll take hit and power tools over defense and speed any day. Obviously there is hope for Rafaela's bat, but it's based on theoretical improvements to a much greater degree than Casas. And if it's "Rafaela is going to be better than people think" I hope you're right.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2023 16:11:22 GMT -5
Among other things, the "players added" include trade acquisitions, and if they break even just on free agents, they're solidly ahead when you add in Mondesi (and I personally think the Barnes for Bleier swap was an upgrade). More broadly, the offseason (what this thread is about) consists of more than just maximizing 2023 WAR. There's the Devers extension; there's the long-term planning (in an alternate universe they might have traded Bello or Casas or Bleis and gone over the CBT to go for it now, which would have been a mistake, or taken on an albatross long term contract, which they avoided); etc.
I would agree the trades count and agree that both are positive, but I don't think either has a lot of impact so I just lumped them into the spaghetti bucket. The Devers signing is interesting. I've been thinking of it as more of a net neutral because they just retained their guy, but now that you mention it they probably deserve more credit than that. Strategy is something I didn't account for, I don't want to get too far down a rabbit hole but I will say that the roster flexibility does allow almost all the prospects to play their way onto the team which to some extent I think is on purpose.Bolded is the part I think is important when considering the player development aspect. I agree with your initial point that having Bello or Casas etc. in the org or even MLB-ready has nothing to do with this offseason - but their role next year does. E.g. If the Sox had gone and invested significant resources in a 'premium' backup 1B and Casas has a big year, that's a mistake; if in the same example Casas struggles, that's a good move. I am very much in favor how seem to have aligned the roster for younger players (Bello and Whitlock in the rotation, Houck likely not in the rotation, no obstacles for Casas at 1B, etc.) so I count this as a positive for the current offseason and it influences how I feel they have positioned the team vs last year.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2023 12:50:41 GMT -5
I really thought that people had learned after the 20-21 offseason that neither "WAR of FA's departed vs. WAR of FA's signed" nor "WAR of FA's signed vs. WAR of FA's signed by other teams in the division" are accurate measures of offseason success or how a team will perform in the following season
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2023 12:10:55 GMT -5
One other thing I've seen alluded to often but not really addressed in terms of this offseason is team leadership and chemistry. Yes, I agree that winning solves most anything - but chemistry can be huge for turning things around when the team isn't winning, and in a number of other ways. I thought all of last year that there was, at the least, a real leadership void on the team; and the more reports that come out, it seems like that was the case. It also looks like there was a concerted effort to transition some of those players out and bring in high-character/veteran leader type players for 2023. I know its cliche but really think that the addition of players like Turner, Kluber, and Jansen can have a positive impact well beyond their numbers. I really like your summary - it's a well-rounded way of looking at it, and I pretty much agree with each of your three perspectives. Just wondering about the last point though... Where do you see this concerted effort to address team chemistry by "transitioning out" certain players? I do think that's something they care about, but also they made serious efforts to retain the two most prominent FAs they lost, Bogaerts and Eovaldi.
I don't think that any of the players they moved on from were "bad" people as individuals or anything like that, but it seemed to me that the 2022 team was factioned, and didn't really have the leadership to bridge the gaps. It seemed to play out around the catchers - there was a group who rallied around Vazquez and became vocal when he was traded, and there was a group who really liked Plawecki and become vocal when he was let go. I imagine there were others that didn't come to public attention. I do think its somewhat notable that both of them were moved mid-season, and a number of the players who spoke up, especially in the Plawecki 'camp', are no longer with the team. I personally thought their effort to retain Eovaldi was very half-hearted, but that may just be me, and they pretty clearly moved on from Hill, Wacha, and Barnes, to name a few others. Add JDM to that list as well. Again, I don't mean to say anything against those guys, just that I'm not sure they were the right fit for a rebuilt, young-ish team needing to prove itself. You could look at that and say "those are just the guys they didn't re-sign" and might well be right, just my opinion but I think there may have been more of a method to who they pursued and how. For Bogaerts, I know this will not be a popular opinion, but I don't think he was the leader the team needed. That's not to say the FO actively wanted him out, I would be shocked if they did, but that he didn't seem like the type to a rally an entire locker room and bring a disparate group of individuals together. He seemed like an all-around good person, looked out for his teammates, was well-spoken, and a guy I was proud to have represent my favorite team. He was also my favorite player, and I'm definitely past the age of having favorite players - I'm sure I wont have another one, so I'm truly sorry he's gone. Much like Pedroia before him though, I think he was being shoehorned into a type of leadership role that he wasn't really a fit for, and I'm hopeful that some of the new additions can help there. (Also, I'm incredibly curious to see how Devers reacts to being THE face of the franchise - he always stuck with Bogaerts and a few others, and I'm fascinated to to see if this is his chance to really come into his own and express himself and stand out, or if that's something he's just not comfortable with.)
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2023 10:57:50 GMT -5
To take a slightly different approach in evaluating the offseason:
The moves that were made: C+ - While I like a majority of the moves they made overall, It's also hard for me to say they adequately addressed the two biggest issues they faced this offseason, at OF and SS. Even if you don't hold Bogaerts leaving against them, it's really hard to say that a starting middle infield of Hernandez and Arroyo, with hopefully Mondesi and maybe some Story, is anything but problematic. In the OF, they effectively lost Hernandez, added Duvall and Yoshida, and are counting on a significant defensive improvement from Verdugo. Lots of questions there, headlined by how well Yoshida transitions to MLB. On the plus side, they made a number of good moves around the bullpen, Turner seems like a very good add, they secured Devers (who hopefully is motivated rather than complacent) and overall the depth seems a lot stronger than previous years. Additionally, if Mondesi can be healthy and/or Story can play a decent chunk of the year, there's a domino effect which should really improve both the infield AND the outfield.
Compared to last year's team: B/B+ - I didn't mention the starting rotation above because on paper they lost a lot more than they gained, but to me this wasn't a position they needed to add significant resources to. I never thought they needed to or should add more than one starter, and believe the rotation will be a strength even assuming the expected injuries. Overall, compared to last year, I expect full seasons of Casas, Bello, Whitlock, McGuire (and hopefully Wong,) Turner compared to last year's JDM, the revamped bullpen, and the additions of Yoshida, Mondesi, and Duvall to outweigh the losses and improve on last year's results. A healthy season from just one of Hernandez, Arroyo, or Mondesi; or improvements from Verdugo or Duran, could bump this up another level.
As a fan: A- - I don't expect the 2023 RedSox to be a truly great team. That is the extent of my disappointment. Otherwise, so many things I'm excited to watch this year: Bello, Casas, Yoshida (as a 'move' he's a risk, but damn I'm excited to watch him and see how it goes,) Whitlock in the rotation, A pitching staff which can throw strikes, a hopefully non-heart-attack bullpen, a lineup that gets on base, and simply having moved on - for better or worse - from most of the lingering questions of the last few years.
One other thing I've seen alluded to often but not really addressed in terms of this offseason is team leadership and chemistry. Yes, I agree that winning solves most anything - but chemistry can be huge for turning things around when the team isn't winning, and in a number of other ways. I thought all of last year that there was, at the least, a real leadership void on the team; and the more reports that come out, it seems like that was the case. It also looks like there was a concerted effort to transition some of those players out and bring in high-character/veteran leader type players for 2023. I know its cliche but really think that the addition of players like Turner, Kluber, and Jansen can have a positive impact well beyond their numbers.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Feb 9, 2023 19:01:26 GMT -5
The numbers here are how many wins better I think they'll be this year relative to last in each category, so this is starting from a baseline of 78 wins: Schedule:... Great post. Going through a very similar thought process, I settled on 87 wins for the Sox this year - although its more like I think there's a 60% chance they win 90+ games and a 40% chance they win 82- games, than particularly likely they land in the middle. Compared to your numbers, if they land at 87-88 wins I expect a bit more value out of defense and baserunning, and a bit less from the pitching. I do think I'm more concerned about a couple of areas than most people who would project them for a similar win total though - SS/2B being the big one. Not sold on Hernandez at short, for a variety of reasons, but that said ok with the gamble that one/both of Mondesi/Story will be healthy enough to play the majority of the time there. Still, if *anything* more goes wrong with the middle infield, they could be in a lot of trouble. Overall though I just wanted to note that I think this is the right way to think about the team in 2023 - look at who will be on the field, rather than a simple "who did they lose/add" tally, which a lot of people seem to be doing. Using the rotation as an example "Lost: Hill, Wacha, Eovaldi. Added: Kluber" sounds pretty bad, but throw in "Chance for significantly more IP from: Sales, Paxton, Whitlock, Bello" sounds pretty good. As others have said, I'm starting to think this is at least the most interesting Sox team in several years - now I just hope I still feel that way in June.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 28, 2023 13:59:55 GMT -5
Not directing this at anyone in specific but just in the last 1-2 pages there are several posts either ignoring or forgetting players this FO has acquired, and then criticizing them for the lack of additions. So, if you completely ignore IFA's and drafts (including Rule 5) then this FO has acquired (via trade unless otherwise noted) the following pre-arb/cost-controlled players, that are still with the organization:
Cost-controlled/pre-or-arbitration post-prospects: Verdugo, Wong, Pivetta, Mcguire, Winckowski, Arroyo (waivers), Schreiber (waivers), Refsnyder (minor league FA), Ort (minor league FA)
Current top-60 prospects (SP rank) : Valdez (17), German (22), Kelly (24, minor league FA), Hernandez(25), Abreu (26), Hamilton (30), Binelas (35), Ferguson (58)
I think including cost-controlled players in this conversation makes sense given the topic/question was originally about needing to build a foundation of cost-controlled players to allow for greater expenditures when needed. If not, and you only wish to look at players acquired who had a prospect ranking, then add the following players to the list of top-60 prospects (SP peak rank) : Winckowski (9), Wong (11), Ort (41, minor league FA.) Am I missing anyone in these lists?
Is that bad? Other than Betts, who is the best player they have traded away? If you say "other than Betts is like saying 'other than Ted Williams' - it would be impossible not to get some kind of MLB talent there" then remove Verdugo and Wong, and they've acquired everyone else on that list and the best player subtracted has been Benintendi, I assume? I'm not really trying to say what's right and wrong here, but can we at least try to have an honest discussion?
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 28, 2023 12:51:37 GMT -5
Maybe the moderators can move these to a new THEOLOGY THREAD. This is the minor league free agent thread! Nobody likes the guy….I got that ten comments ago….. How dare an intelligent conversation break out in a baseball forum Let's immediately resume plotting how we can use this signing to support our increasingly polarized viewpoint that Bloom is the best/worst front-office executive in memory. I have noticed that as time goes on I personally have less and less patience for supporting players whose personal beliefs I find offensive - there's plenty of possible reasons for that, and several of them probably reflect negatively on me, but 20 years ago I was a lot more willing to look the other way about what a player did off the field, if I liked who he was on it. I will also say that fans in general seem a lot more willing to forgive 'transgressions' on the field due to age, compared to off of it. Every so often people will pass off a fight or theft or something as immaturity, but in general, "he's young and inexperienced, give him a chance and he'll learn" is a pretty common response to something that happens on the field, and pretty rare when something like personal beliefs are involved.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 1, 2023 20:19:06 GMT -5
SO yes, his floor is he never makes it at all, but if he does then he is a combination of JBJ and Iglesias (maybe not quite in that class as ss but close) For me, this is the part I disagree with. His CF defense gives him a relatively high floor, but I think you are are underrating JBJ and Iglesias or overrating Rafaela if you see it as a forgone conclusion that he can have one of their careers (nevermind both/at two different positions) just by having a batting avg in the .200 - .240 range. Related, does anybody have a good feel for his overall ss defense at this point? I see plenty of reports about his OF defense but see and hear a lot less about ss, aside from a few highlight-reel plays
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 10, 2022 10:24:23 GMT -5
I’ve read these forums off and on for a long time, but this thread caused me to want to register. My view is something that I haven’t seen discussed yet. Namely, that the cause of the Red Sox current problems is largely the result of the off-season after they won the World Series in 2018 Couldn't agree more. Choosing to extend Sale and Eovaldi, and making some other minor moves, rather than extending the homegrown core then, or clearing the space to do so in the future, put the Sox on this current path. And if Sale had been healthy, things might have gone very differently, but oh well.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 10, 2022 10:08:41 GMT -5
Also looks like a different swing on many of the hr and deeper line drives, like he's intentionally trying to elevate. Obviously what we don't see is how often that swing resulted in popups/poor contact, but it reminds me of all the stories of elite contact hitters over the years in MLB who would put on a power show in batting practice and then go slap 3 singles in a game.
I will also say that it looks like there's some real power there, most of the hr weren't cheap shots that barely cleared the fence down the rf line or something - whichever scouting report it was that gave him a 35 power seems pretty questionable after watching this.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 9, 2022 8:41:21 GMT -5
Pay your homegrown talent! Should they? If your homegrown talent isn't as good as what else you could get, is it really the right thing to do to keep the homegrown players? There's two different ways of looking at this: pay homegrown talent when they are years from FA and hopefully cheap (although not every player is open to this, Mookie was very forthcoming about going to FA for top-dollar years in advance) and retaining homegrown players once they become FA. I definitely agree with the former, but of the 3 players discussed here, Mookie wasn't open to it; Bogaerts said he would have signed last yeat but 1) I take everything that comes from Boras and his players with a boulder-sized grain of salt, 2) the reported contract to sign him a year ago (5/150) would have been considered by many to be a huge overpay at the time, and 3) that's much closer to FA than I'm referring to as being a good deal; and we'll see with Devers but he sounds intent on getting top FA dollars as well. So, are homegrown players necessarily the right players to spend top-dollar on? As a fan I want to keep players consistent, it makes them easier to root for etc. In terms of building the best team, I'm not so sure.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 8, 2022 23:07:24 GMT -5
compared to the huge dead money that's effectively guaranteed in the back-end of a huge FA deal. i guess my question would be, where does this end ? Yes, it is likely to be have less value at the end. But, why should that scare the Boston Red Sox ? They can mitigate 1 bad contract just by their revenues alone. It won't crush them. And that is my major point. Three great ballplayers, one, Xander, who is the epitome of what you look for in an employee. They can't take a long term risk on 1 of these guys ? I don't see it. They have become completely dispassionate in roster construction The negative effects of that may not be quantifiable, but they will be real. A player like X walking off the field in a Sox uniform after 15 years is something worthwhile. My question in return is "Why was Bogaerts THE guy worth risking this for?" I say this as someone who was a huge Bogaerts fan. I thought I was far past the age of having a "favorite" player but Bogaerts was. Being objective though, I don't think he's worth paying to be the best or probably 2nd best player on your roster, never mind the insane burden the 2nd half of his current contract will bring. I'm actually worried what this contract will do to his legacy, that he'll get defined by a horrific contract and not his playing career. To answer your question, for me it ends when you have enough cost-effective young players that having dead money from a "bad" FA signing doesn't completely ruin your chances to compete.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 8, 2022 16:59:34 GMT -5
The Sale extension really ended it, although forr me personally the day of Eovaldi's extension was the day I gave up on what should have been a 10-year window built around that core (including Sale but not Eovaldi as part of the "core") and started wondering what was next. The finances and timing just didn't work to keep enough of the core together to be relevant after that.
Obviously I doubt the FO and ownership agree with me exactly, but I think once they moved on from Dombrowski they asked "can we win consistently with what we can still retain?" If the answer was "No" then the only course of action was to move on. That seems to be what they did, with a focus on not ending up in this situation again.
Fwiw, there's a lot of talk about how the Sox should leverage their financial strength: extend guys a year early, beat other teams for top FA, not worry about dead money at the back-end of contracts, etc. For me personally, I'd like to see them take on risk with young players very early. E.g. lock up Casas and Bello for a decade plus within the next year or so, before they get crazy expensive. Sure, not everyone will pan out but you're talking dollar amounts that the Sox have the finances to absorb, compared to the huge dead money that's effectively guaranteed in the back-end of a huge FA deal.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 8, 2022 8:12:39 GMT -5
I really enjoy seeing a lot of the same people who complained loudly and constantly about Bogaerts' defense up until last year - he was dragging down the pitching staff, a statue, no business at SS, team should be trying to replace him, should have signed Correa last year, etc. - now saying they should have offered him 6/160 or whatever at that time
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 7, 2022 13:53:43 GMT -5
This is the first move from this FO that I have a completely negative gut reaction to. I see a few possibilities, which are not mutually exclusive: - The Sox really were losing out on all of their targets, were afraid they would end up with literally nobody, and did this. That would obviously be bad, although better than just sitting on the money
- There is a plan to deal existing cheap bullpen options (Schreiber, Mata, etc.) and they chose to spend FA $ on the 'pen so that they could bolster other areas via trade - I would like this a lot, but am doubtful any Sox relievers have that all that much trade value
- The FO felt they needed to further bolster the 'pen with a "proven" player and felt this was the best value - I will say I certainly prefer this to trading for a big-name high-leverage reliever
- They plan to win on the strength of their bullpen - It has happened before, but probably not a good bet
- Absent everything else, the Sox simply think this is a good/worthwhile signing - Obviously the simplest answer and ironically the one I would be the most upset with, as I think it is a massive overpay (not compared to the rest of the market, its fair in that sense, just in terms of what you are likely to get for the money)
Also, if he pitches well, Jansen probably could bring back quite a bit if dealt midseason either of the next 2 years, but I sincerely hope that's not the driving factor in signing someone for this kind of money. In favor of this deal, I will say, the downside is pretty-much limited to "Who are you not signing due to the money spent on Jansen?" - if the answer is effectively nobody, then at least the risk is pretty minimal compared to a lot of FAs.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 2, 2022 17:46:08 GMT -5
Basically, Eflin and his agent used the Red Sox to get what they wanted out of Tampa. Bummer. Counterpoint: the Sox drove the price up on Eflin forcing Tampa to give out their biggest FA deal ever
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Nov 15, 2022 18:58:51 GMT -5
It really makes me laugh that fans think bloom of all people will spend 40m on 1 player. Do y’all know our GM? We should be investing in Chafin/Wisler/Moore/Hand. We need 2 of those 4 guys before we should address any starters. Doesn’t matter how good your starters our if your BP blows every lead. ...approximately how many games do you expect to win if your starters never have a lead to hand over to the bullpen?
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Oct 26, 2022 12:25:24 GMT -5
My take was that this was to make a point to Jones. He got the start, but then did or handled something in a way Bill didn't like - not throwing a pick in and of itself, but maybe the decision-making that went into that play, or maybe something completely unrelated - and was pulled as a result.
To be clear this is just my personal 2 cents, and even if that is the reason I don't think it means much in the long run. The more of Zappe we see, though, the more I will wonder.
Also possible Jones was simply more hurt than they/we/he thought, although I feel like even Belichick would have said at least something if that was the case.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Oct 17, 2022 18:04:48 GMT -5
I don't really get why "most wins in the regular season" has to be THE arbiter of how 'good' a team is. Its not like the playoffs are a surprise for the teams and players involved, and I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that the team best equipped to succeed in a 162-game season is automatically the team that's best equipped to win a short series. Teams know they have to succeed at both - yes, there's obviously more random chance involved in the playoffs, but I think its really unfair to assume that every team that won a playoff series despite finishing lower in the regular season and/or being an underdog was automatically lucky rather than good. Injuries and roster depth, clutch/streakiness, home/road splits, ability to throw multiple innings/on short rest, relivers with the ability to get K's/popups with risp and less than 2 outs, veteran leadership, etc. You obviously can't perfectly manipulate a lot of these factors, but they all play into playoff success and need to be considered, and I believe teams that do them well deserve some recognition for it (and are a ton of fun to watch.)
And really, wouldn't it just be amazingly boring if the team with the best record or best (choose your metric of choice: WAR, pythag, etc.) won the World Series 90% of the time? (Reduce the "best teams should win" argument to absurdity and everyone should be a Yankees, Packers, Lakers, and Canadiens fan, which probably won't fly with a Boston-centric audience.)
I'm not saying the current playoff structure is perfect, it can definitely be tweaked, and I'm not necessarily a fan of even the current number of teams getting into the postseason - but I definitely AM a fan of teams exceeding expectations when they get the chance.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Oct 11, 2022 9:19:34 GMT -5
Yeah but, are you saving less by waiting?!!!! Yup, but I`d really rather see a full year first. A lot less risk. He might also be harder to sign if he`s really good next year. Agreed. Everyone has their own thoughts on "THIS is how the Sox should leverage their financial resources" - this is one of mine. I'd rather give it another year and pay a few million more annually to mitigate the risk of making a significant mistakae. I definitely would like to see them join the trend of extending players early, though.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 26, 2022 12:27:25 GMT -5
It's just a shame because for me that was Mac Jones breakout game, he did things I've never seen before. Finally starting to get chemistry with Parker. Using his feet more than I've ever seen, even that 2 point conversion that didn't count. A young QB will have interceptions as his pushes the boundaries. The negativity is crazy, Mac Jones has more passing ability than Lamar Lackson and its not close. The D was the issue for a large part of that game, letting Jackson dink and dunk his way down the field. They used the aggressive D against them. You really missed Duggar and you still need that fast athletic LB to take it to the next level. Agholor fumble just absolutely killed us. That's the 2nd time in 3 games a fumble by him killed us. Like I said it’s a shame because if not for the injury which is likely taking Mac out for weeks if not months I'd be very excited going forward. I agree with almost all of this. I thought it may have been a good thing for the offense, and Jones especially, to be without Meyers and have to do something different. Jones did a lot of things well and you have to expect the interceptions and the like as he evolves - growing and making some bad plays has me a lot more optimistic for his potential than continuing to play ultra-safe. I would like to see them run (a lot) more. The right side of the OL looks very bad to my completely untrained eyes and maybe that's part of the issue? If there's a positive to Jones missing some time I'm hoping it's a focus on getting the running game back to where it should be, as the focus of the offense.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 19, 2022 12:02:11 GMT -5
Mac Jones just doesn't have the arm to be anything like Brady. Brady wasn't Manning either, but he wasn't too shabby. From everything I've seen Jones throws a better deep ball now than Brady did at any point in his career. I mean, of course Jones won't be Brady, but Brady's ability to throw a football downfield is pretty far down the list of what made him great.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 6, 2022 12:03:55 GMT -5
Why on earth would anyone think Pedro Martinez understands the Red Sox front office better than the Red Sox front office?
|
|
|