2020 Pats: You Cam Go Your Own Way

Apr 24, 2019
1,278
Cam's stats were inflated against the Texans, and not just by the two last-minute heaves where Houston played loose and made tackles. He is wildly inconsistent, except that he's kind of consistently inaccurate. I love the guy, I love some of the plays, love to watch him run, love the leadership. He's been a pleasant surprise off the field and in the locker room. I hope it ends on any kind of a positive note for him here, but I also hope it ends SOON, as in the close of the regular season.

edit typos and clarity.
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,346
Are there 5 starting QBs on NFL teams depth chart (not injured or COVID) you wouldn’t take this season over Cam? I’d take 4 QBs in the AFC East alone over him which includes Fitzpatrick.
I’d take Cam over the entire NFC East and Jacksonville, at a minimum

Edit: Ok, not injured, so Dak over Cam. But I will add Chicago and Denver to the list.
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,346
Not that PFF grades are gospel, but also interesting that even after this week’s rough outing Cam is still actually in the middle of the pack in their rankings.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
One consideration when evaluating yesterday's game is that the Pats ran so few plays: 48 total, which is not very many. Cardinals ran 68. So there wasn't a lot of opportunity for Cam to redeem himself from his bad plays and perhaps turn a true stinker into a meh game.

Some of that was obviously Cam's fault, as a couple of drives were truncated by bad QB plays. Taking a closer look:

1: Truncated by the deflection-INT, although the OL deserves some blame as well.
2: Cam was bad: 1-5 with a sack.
3: Much better on the short field, as Cam was 2-3 for 20 yards, and made the good decision on the option run for the TD.
4: 0-2 with a sack after picking up 12 yards on 2 runs to start the drive.
5: Another short field. Cam missed a pass, forcing NWE to settle for a FG after 1st-and-goal.
6: Another short field. All runs, two of them by Cam.
7: Disastrous end around set up a 3rd-and-14 and subsequent incompletion.
8: 2nd Cam INT, a bad one.
9: Picking up the 1st down on 3rd-and-14th was pretty big, even if the penalty was questionable.
It was a weird performance. There were a bunch of plays that almost happened - Cam was late on one that Byrd caught just OOB, Harry dropped one, one pass was just out of Meyers' reach, etc. It was not a good passing performance, and the second INT was real ugly.

OTOH, Cam's running was critical yesterday. They had 8 first downs on the ground; Cam picked up 4 of them (on only 9 carries; he had another first down run called back by penalty). Both White TD runs were created in part by the threat of Cam running (definitely the first one; probably the second, too). Cam the runner was the best skill player on the offense yesterday; Cam the passer was the O's biggest detriment. It's hard to envision what the offense would even look like with a more conventional QB.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
So it's interesting. Last week Cam has 365 yards passing on 26 completions in 40 attempts (65%), and zero interceptions. But they lose so Cam stinks.

This week, Cam is a dismal 9-18 for 84 yards, 0 td, and 2 td, but the Pats win. So Cam stinks.

It seems like he has to put up good numbers and win in order to not stink.
Nah, even that isn't enough, he was great in the comeback win vs the jets and everyone said he stunk after that game too, probably in the ravens game too where he was basically perfect when asked to do anything.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
So it's interesting. Last week Cam has 365 yards passing on 26 completions in 40 attempts (65%), and zero interceptions. But they lose so Cam stinks.

This week, Cam is a dismal 9-18 for 84 yards, 0 td, and 2 td, but the Pats win. So Cam stinks.

It seems like he has to put up good numbers and win in order to not stink.
I think it's more like recognizing a hitter going 4 for 4, but all four hits are swinging bunts and weakly hit bleeders, as opposed to a guy who goes O-4 with 3 line drives and a great catch at the wall.

In that 26 for 40 game, maybe 30 of those passes were not good. (Behind the receiver, at the receivers knees, wrong shoulder). That some were caught doesn't change anything.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I think Cam is playing with everything he has. I think he's giving his heart and soul to this season, and I respect his effort.

That being said, I also believe that our offense, with its complete lack of playmakers, and he, are not a good fit moving forward. Brady was heady enough that he somehow was able, despite often having marginal weapons, to find that little seam to his 3rd or 4th option and somehow, he made it work long enough to generate long successful drives.

Cam just can't do that IMO. I believe the only way Cam should come back is if a major investment is made to the offense insofar as weapons. Cam needs a couple legit passing weapons that are much better at getting open than what we have. If that isnt doable, then I'd rather go with someone young who can at least, hopefully, develop and grow into our long term QB.
 

CapeCodYaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2020
68
Cam's stats were inflated against the Texans, and not just by the two last-minute heaves where Houston played loose and made tackles. He is wildly inconsistent, except that he's kind of consistently inaccurate. I love the guy, I love some of the plays, love to watch him run, love the leadership. He's been a pleasant surprise off the field and in the locker room. I hope it ends on any kind of a positive note for him here, but I also hope it ends SOON, as in the close of the regular season.

edit typos and clarity.
I like his attitude and options he presents--that said he looks slower running since COVID and somethign has to be messed up with his shoulder---he throws sort of a three quarter side arm and his footwork is all messed up but I'll take a win even if it is ugly
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
I think Cam is playing with everything he has. I think he's giving his heart and soul to this season, and I respect his effort.

That being said, I also believe that our offense, with its complete lack of playmakers, and he, are not a good fit moving forward. Brady was heady enough that he somehow was able, despite often having marginal weapons, to find that little seam to his 3rd or 4th option and somehow, he made it work long enough to generate long successful drives.

Cam just can't do that IMO. I believe the only way Cam should come back is if a major investment is made to the offense insofar as weapons. Cam needs a couple legit passing weapons that are much better at getting open than what we have. If that isnt doable, then I'd rather go with someone young who can at least, hopefully, develop and grow into our long term QB.
One of Brady's underappreciated skills, and one of Newton's glaring issues, is accuracy on checkdowns, screens and crosses. These are balls travelling fewer than 10 yards, but even slight inaccuracy cuts potential gains in half. It's one reason why Brady passing game (Moss aside) succeeded without high-end deep threats. It's not fair to compare Newton to Brady, but that's what we have right now.

I have no doubt that Cam is going all out and giving it everything he's got. As far as coming back, I agree that this is what Cam is and he is probably the best option right now. I dont share your optimism with better receivers. Cam has regularly missed (not seen) open receivers this season. While I dont know how that compares to other QBs, if the QB needs receivers to be really, really open to see/hit him, then it's time for a new QB.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
I think Cam is playing with everything he has. I think he's giving his heart and soul to this season, and I respect his effort.

That being said, I also believe that our offense, with its complete lack of playmakers, and he, are not a good fit moving forward. Brady was heady enough that he somehow was able, despite often having marginal weapons, to find that little seam to his 3rd or 4th option and somehow, he made it work long enough to generate long successful drives.

Cam just can't do that IMO. I believe the only way Cam should come back is if a major investment is made to the offense insofar as weapons. Cam needs a couple legit passing weapons that are much better at getting open than what we have. If that isnt doable, then I'd rather go with someone young who can at least, hopefully, develop and grow into our long term QB.
There shouldn't be any scenario where Cam comes back next year. If they can't upgrade that position from what we've gotten from him, even with a full off season plus, that's a really bad sign.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I think Cam is playing with everything he has. I think he's giving his heart and soul to this season, and I respect his effort.

That being said, I also believe that our offense, with its complete lack of playmakers, and he, are not a good fit moving forward. Brady was heady enough that he somehow was able, despite often having marginal weapons, to find that little seam to his 3rd or 4th option and somehow, he made it work long enough to generate long successful drives.

Cam just can't do that IMO. I believe the only way Cam should come back is if a major investment is made to the offense insofar as weapons. Cam needs a couple legit passing weapons that are much better at getting open than what we have. If that isnt doable, then I'd rather go with someone young who can at least, hopefully, develop and grow into our long term QB.
Who is a good fit for an offense with a complete lack of playmakers? You mention Brady, but the O wasn't exactly humming late in the year when he was running the show. Finding the 3rd / 4th option isn't that useful when the 3rd / 4th option is N'Keal Harry, Mohamed Sanu, or Matt LaCosse. I think Cam's running ability gives the offense a different dimension than they've had, but they still aren't versatile enough to execute consistently if teams are taking away the run.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Who is a good fit for an offense with a complete lack of playmakers? You mention Brady, but the O wasn't exactly humming late in the year when he was running the show. Finding the 3rd / 4th option isn't that useful when the 3rd / 4th option is N'Keal Harry, Mohamed Sanu, or Matt LaCosse. I think Cam's running ability gives the offense a different dimension than they've had, but they still aren't versatile enough to execute consistently if teams are taking away the run.
I just dont think his decision making is even close to good enough
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
The Patriots' offense does one thing really well. Run the ball. #5 in the NFL in rushing yards a game. #8 in rushing yards per attempt. #3 in rushing touchdowns. All that while only losing one fumble rushing all season. (The Cam fumble against Buffalo)

Now, Cam has a positive effect on the run game, because (1) he is a good runner, and (2) his threat of running opens things up for other backs. But aside from Cam, the Pats have rushed 263 times for 1,259 yds, for a terrific 4.8 avg. Harris alone is 110 for 561 (5.1). But it's not just him:

Harris: 5.1 y/a
Michel: 6.7 y/a
Burkhead: 4.1 y/a
Taylor: 4.4 y/a
White: 3.4 y/a - that's by far the worst avg of all the RBs

So they're getting rushing production everywhere they turn.

Now, if you have that kind of rushing attack, lots of QBs can make hay in the passing game, even with below average receivers. That kind of running attack opens up play-action and gives average QBs bigger throwing lanes. The question is: would not having Cam hurt the running game enough such that they couldn't take advantage in the passing game? Because if - even aside from Cam - this was how good next year's running game was, a guy like Fitzpatrick, for example, should be able to put up some serious passing yards and points. And Fitz...isn't even that good. But he's a competent thrower of the football. And this caliber rushing attack would help him immensely.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,741
Who is a good fit for an offense with a complete lack of playmakers? You mention Brady, but the O wasn't exactly humming late in the year when he was running the show. Finding the 3rd / 4th option isn't that useful when the 3rd / 4th option is N'Keal Harry, Mohamed Sanu, or Matt LaCosse. I think Cam's running ability gives the offense a different dimension than they've had, but they still aren't versatile enough to execute consistently if teams are taking away the run.
The offensive line is a lot better this year than last (Andrews makes a ton of difference, Onwenu is terrific and better than Cannon, and Mason was obviously hurt last year). Combine that with Harris, this offense would be very different with a competent (i.e. Brady) quarterback, and certainly much better than last year....Brady would excel in play action with this group.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
A very good offensive line, James White and Harris, Byrd and Meyers. That's not the worst supporting cast we've seen in New England. A halfway decent quarterback could move the ball and score with that around him. Cam Newton can't.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,824
Needham, MA
A very good offensive line, James White and Harris, Byrd and Meyers. That's not the worst supporting cast we've seen in New England. A halfway decent quarterback could move the ball and score with that around him. Cam Newton can't.
I was just about to say, I think talk about how awful the weapons are (outside of the TE position which is a complete tire fire) is overblown. They aren't great but they aren't awful either. Matt Chatham in particular has been battling the "no weapons!" stuff on Twitter all season long. There are plenty of examples to see on his Twitter feed of Cam not seeing open receivers, or waiting too long, etc. Guys have been open, Cam either can't find them or can't get them the ball.

I like Cam personally, and he's had his stretches this year, but overall when the offense has struggled IMO poor QB performance has been at the top of the list as to why. He just seems to play the game too slowly now (slow to recognize what the defense is doing, slow to deliver the ball, long, slow release, and while I wouldn't call him slow for his size as a runner he's definitely not fast like he used to be).
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
There shouldn't be any scenario where Cam comes back next year. If they can't upgrade that position from what we've gotten from him, even with a full off season plus, that's a really bad sign.
I don't necessarily disagree, but there aren't a ton of appealing options. They aren't going to be in position to draft Lawrence or Fields. The next 2 QB's in the draft are Zach Wilson and Trey Lance who may be available when they pick, but also may not be guys who will start day 1. There aren't many options on the free agent market. I guess maybe Brissett since he's had some experience and familiarity with Josh and Bill, but his 2 years as a starter were roughly what they're getting from Newton now. Other free agents with starting experience:

Dak Prescott
Mitch Trubisky
Philip Rivers
Tyrod Taylor
Joe Flacco
Jameis Winston
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Andy Dalton
Nick Mullens
CJ Beathard
Jimmy Garoppolo (not a FA but a plausible cut candidate)

I don't really see many true upgrades to Newton on this list. Rivers, yes, but he'll be 39, Who knows if he wants to play and if he does if he'd be willing to come to NE. Dak would be an upgrade as well but carries risk coming off a significant injury. Also, not sure how realistic it is that he leaves Dallas. Winston is only 26, maybe they would view him as a reclamation project but the guy is a turnover machine and has a career high passer rating of 92.2 which isn't very good these days (although higher than Cam right now). I'm not sure what to make of his situation in New Orleans. Is Payton being stubborn about proving Taysom Hill can play, or does he really think Hill is the better QB? If it's the latter, that's a pretty big knock against Winston. Trubisky would fall into the same category as Winston, a reclamation project. I don't think either represent a clear upgrade on Newton. Jinny might be the most appealing option but he'd need to get cut and then also sign here as a FA so I don't think it's a layup they could pull it off.

I'm not trying to say Cam's been good and should be back. He's stunk. But the next guy is likely to stink and suck too.
 

SamCassellsStones

New Member
Feb 8, 2017
130
Sony’s really averaging 6.7 yards per attempt (prior to injury/benching for sucking)? Small sample size or a couple long runs, I’m guessing?

The Patriots' offense does one thing really well. Run the ball. #5 in the NFL in rushing yards a game. #8 in rushing yards per attempt. #3 in rushing touchdowns. All that while only losing one fumble rushing all season. (The Cam fumble against Buffalo)

Now, Cam has a positive effect on the run game, because (1) he is a good runner, and (2) his threat of running opens things up for other backs. But aside from Cam, the Pats have rushed 263 times for 1,259 yds, for a terrific 4.8 avg. Harris alone is 110 for 561 (5.1). But it's not just him:

Harris: 5.1 y/a
Michel: 6.7 y/a
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Sony’s really averaging 6.7 yards per attempt (prior to injury/benching for sucking)? Small sample size or a couple long runs, I’m guessing?
Both. He had one huge game (against the Raiders) that featured a 38-yard run (9 att, 117 yds) and a 13-yard run.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
Isn't Bortles a FA at the end of the season? I thought he was the "leftover QB" target before Cam agreed to terms with the Pats.
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,401
Overland Park, KS
I love Cam, respect his toughness and how good a teammate he seems to be but I would like a new QB, as well. I think cshea is not looking at more creative ways to get a QB. I think Stafford, and Darnold could be had for the right price. Lions would have to eat $19 million but look like they need a total rebuild. It's doubtful the Jets would trade Darnold to NE but they are rebuilding. Picks are picks.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
I'd be perfectly fine with rolling with Jimmy G if he became available. Injury risk is always there with him but he's not too far removed from a very good season and he obviously is familiar with Josh. I respect Cam's fire but I can't watch another year of this. He just looks absolutely toast and the running game where most of his value is derived will continue to deteriorate as he ages. Stidham is clearly not the answer either. I'm hoping for 2 new QBs on the team next year.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I don't necessarily disagree, but there aren't a ton of appealing options. They aren't going to be in position to draft Lawrence or Fields. The next 2 QB's in the draft are Zach Wilson and Trey Lance who may be available when they pick, but also may not be guys who will start day 1. There aren't many options on the free agent market. I guess maybe Brissett since he's had some experience and familiarity with Josh and Bill, but his 2 years as a starter were roughly what they're getting from Newton now. Other free agents with starting experience:

Dak Prescott
Mitch Trubisky
Philip Rivers
Tyrod Taylor
Joe Flacco
Jameis Winston
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Andy Dalton
Nick Mullens
CJ Beathard
Jimmy Garoppolo (not a FA but a plausible cut candidate)

I don't really see many true upgrades to Newton on this list. Rivers, yes, but he'll be 39, Who knows if he wants to play and if he does if he'd be willing to come to NE. Dak would be an upgrade as well but carries risk coming off a significant injury. Also, not sure how realistic it is that he leaves Dallas. Winston is only 26, maybe they would view him as a reclamation project but the guy is a turnover machine and has a career high passer rating of 92.2 which isn't very good these days (although higher than Cam right now). I'm not sure what to make of his situation in New Orleans. Is Payton being stubborn about proving Taysom Hill can play, or does he really think Hill is the better QB? If it's the latter, that's a pretty big knock against Winston. Trubisky would fall into the same category as Winston, a reclamation project. I don't think either represent a clear upgrade on Newton. Jinny might be the most appealing option but he'd need to get cut and then also sign here as a FA so I don't think it's a layup they could pull it off.

I'm not trying to say Cam's been good and should be back. He's stunk. But the next guy is likely to stink and suck too.
I think that Jimmy G is the best target on this list. He knows the system and he's been pretty good overall over his whole career. The injuries are worrisome -- is he brittle or does his playing style make him more susceptible? -- if you put any stock into the past performance/future predictability of injuries. His contract would yield San Fran enormous cap savings if he is either traded or cut. And if the Pats try to trade for him, the contract isn't too onerous (two years remaining for about $50M as is), especially if it could be renegotiated/extended. And that's before you get into any of the potential intrigue/truth to the stories that it was Jimmy G that Belichick wanted to keep back in 2017.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
I think that Jimmy G is the best target on this list. He knows the system and he's been pretty good overall over his whole career. The injuries are worrisome -- is he brittle or does his playing style make him more susceptible? -- if you put any stock into the past performance/future predictability of injuries. His contract would yield San Fran enormous cap savings if he is either traded or cut. And if the Pats try to trade for him, the contract isn't too onerous (two years remaining for about $50M as is), especially if it could be renegotiated/extended. And that's before you get into any of the potential intrigue/truth to the stories that it was Jimmy G that Belichick wanted to keep back in 2017.
Yup. And Tampa comes to Foxboro next year. Would be hilarious and pretty surreal to see Brady face off against Belichick/Jimmy.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
The Athletic has a good look at the QB situation for all teams next year. Here's some of the Pats content:

“I know they are singing his praises, but he is up and down,” an evaluator said. “Is Bill (Belichick) really going to hang his hat and pay him?”

"Newton, over the Patriots’ past four games, ranks fifth in EPA per pass attempt, including No. 1 when targeting wide receivers. He ranks fourth over that span in yards per attempt but is tied for last with two touchdown passes."

https://theathletic.com/2220040/2020/11/27/nfl-qb-contracts-patriots-eagles-carson-wentz/
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Those are all bad options. And I would still take just about any of them next year over Cam. There is also a draft.
Indeed. If they left Jimmy G on his existing contract, that would give them two years to groom a new QB of the future, as it sure seems like Stidham isn't that guy. I wouldn't mind seeing a double-dip at QB this year, maybe a 3rd and a 6th.
According to this article: "New England has eight picks in the 2021 NFL Draft, in addition to three projected compensatory selections for losing free agents Tom Brady, Kyle Van Noy (sic -- they also lost Jamie Collins and Nate Ebner) over the offseason." 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, plus the comp picks.
According to this site, it looks like the Pats might gain a 3rd and two 4ths.
That would leave them with 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Now, if you have that kind of rushing attack, lots of QBs can make hay in the passing game, even with below average receivers. That kind of running attack opens up play-action and gives average QBs bigger throwing lanes. The question is: would not having Cam hurt the running game enough such that they couldn't take advantage in the passing game? Because if - even aside from Cam - this was how good next year's running game was, a guy like Fitzpatrick, for example, should be able to put up some serious passing yards and points. And Fitz...isn't even that good. But he's a competent thrower of the football. And this caliber rushing attack would help him immensely.
Research suggests there's really very little or no correlation between run game success and play action success. I don't think there's much reason to believe a Fitzpatrick - who has had plenty of terrible seasons with poor supporting casts - would play effectively with this group of receivers.

My understanding is FO has also found that mobile QBs have an impact on the run game even aside from their own rushes. I can't find that article (I believe it was early FO). We saw some of that Sunday ... obviously the Pats weren't running the option pitch to White for the TD with Brady at QB. I don't know how to quantify it, but I suspect the overall run game would be less effective with a traditional pocket passer.

And taking a 2021 view, there's no guarantee the Pats are going to have the same OL success with Thuney, Andrews, and Eluemunor all hitting free agency.

I was just about to say, I think talk about how awful the weapons are (outside of the TE position which is a complete tire fire) is overblown. They aren't great but they aren't awful either. Matt Chatham in particular has been battling the "no weapons!" stuff on Twitter all season long. There are plenty of examples to see on his Twitter feed of Cam not seeing open receivers, or waiting too long, etc. Guys have been open, Cam either can't find them or can't get them the ball.
I'm sure you can always find plays like that. I'm not going to argue Cam is perfect. But they have no margin for error because they can't generate explosive plays. They didn't have a play that gained 20 yards on Sunday. That means you need short fields or perfect execution to score; they got the former vs the Cardinals, but not typically, and the latter is obviously in short supply. Some of that's on Cam, but not all.

There's a reason the whole skill position group was UDFAs and castoffs. The top skill players Sunday (in snaps) were 7th-rounder Izzo, UDFA Meyers, UDFA / castoff Byrd, and UDFA Jakob Johnson (OK, and third-rounder Harris, but he's a non-factor in the passing game). I don't think there's a passing game juggernaut waiting to be unlocked with this bunch, even with prime Brady / Mahomes / pick your QB.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Research suggests there's really very little or no correlation between run game success and play action success. I don't think there's much reason to believe a Fitzpatrick - who has had plenty of terrible seasons with poor supporting casts - would play effectively with this group of receivers.

My understanding is FO has also found that mobile QBs have an impact on the run game even aside from their own rushes. I can't find that article (I believe it was early FO). We saw some of that Sunday ... obviously the Pats weren't running the option pitch to White for the TD with Brady at QB. I don't know how to quantify it, but I suspect the overall run game would be less effective with a traditional pocket passer.

And taking a 2021 view, there's no guarantee the Pats are going to have the same OL success with Thuney, Andrews, and Eluemunor all hitting free agency.


I'm sure you can always find plays like that. I'm not going to argue Cam is perfect. But they have no margin for error because they can't generate explosive plays. They didn't have a play that gained 20 yards on Sunday. That means you need short fields or perfect execution to score; they got the former vs the Cardinals, but not typically, and the latter is obviously in short supply. Some of that's on Cam, but not all.

There's a reason the whole skill position group was UDFAs and castoffs. The top skill players Sunday (in snaps) were 7th-rounder Izzo, UDFA Meyers, UDFA / castoff Byrd, and UDFA Jakob Johnson (OK, and third-rounder Harris, but he's a non-factor in the passing game). I don't think there's a passing game juggernaut waiting to be unlocked with this bunch, even with prime Brady / Mahomes / pick your QB.
My guess is that Thuney walks, with Onwenu moving to LG, Andrews re-signs, and Eluemenor, Cannon and Herron battle for the two tackle spots (starter and swing).
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,946
Seconded. His stats have nosedived - particularly his comp % which might partially explain the big increase in Int's. What's the perceived wisdom with Wentz's decline (at age 28)?
Football is a team game, and Philly's skill position group may be the only one in the NFL that I wouldn't trade the entire Pats skill position group straight up for this season. Their leading rusher, Miles Sanders, missed 3 games (Wentz is the 3rd leading rusher on the team, behind Boston Scott), their leading receiver, Greg Ward, played QB at Houston, Ertz and Goedert have both missed almost half of the games, and Richard Rodgers is the 4th leading receiver on the team. If it wasn't for the out-of-nowhere emergence of Travis Fulgham, Wentz' numbers would be even worse. They are a mess.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Research suggests there's really very little or no correlation between run game success and play action success. I don't think there's much reason to believe a Fitzpatrick - who has had plenty of terrible seasons with poor supporting casts - would play effectively with this group of receivers.
I've got to really dig into that piece you linked to. There's a lot there. But it certainly goes against logic to think that PA wouldn't be more effective - all other things being equal - for a team with a really good rushing attack compared to a team with a weak rushing attack.

I mean...the whole point of PA is to invite the defense to commit to stopping what they think is a running play. But if a team is crappy at running the ball, why would the defense really care that much if they hand the ball off to lousy RBs running behind a lousy run-blocking offensive line? I mean...if I'm running a defense, and the other team's offense has bad RBs and a bad run-blocking offensive line, I *want* them to hand the ball off. And I don't sweat that they do. But if they have a really good running game, I need to commit to stopping it, bringing players up into the box, etc. And so it stands to reason that a fake handoff in that situation is much more likely to draw my linebackers in than a team that sucks at running the football.

I coach high school volleyball. And if the other team has a great middle hitter, we have to commit our middle blocker - and sometimes even other blockers - to shutting her off, which opens up the other hitters they have. So when their middle runs to attack the ball, we HAVE to commit blockers to her, or she'll pound it down our throats. But if the other team has crappy middle hitters, we sometimes don't even have to assign ANYONE to blocking their middle, and can commit our blockers instead to their better outside hitters.

In the first case, a fake set to the middle is HUGELY effective. In the second case, we can almost literally ignore it and thus it's utterly INeffective.

It's the same principle. So I'll look at it, but I'm dubious that there's no correlation.

My understanding is FO has also found that mobile QBs have an impact on the run game even aside from their own rushes. I can't find that article (I believe it was early FO). We saw some of that Sunday ... obviously the Pats weren't running the option pitch to White for the TD with Brady at QB. I don't know how to quantify it, but I suspect the overall run game would be less effective with a traditional pocket passer.

And taking a 2021 view, there's no guarantee the Pats are going to have the same OL success with Thuney, Andrews, and Eluemunor all hitting free agency.
I agree that mobile QBs have a big impact on the running game, and that's where Cam has been enormously helpful actually. He's a threat every time he has the ball in his hands, and the defense has to account for that. Going back to a pure drop back (i.e., non-running) QB would probably have a negative effect on NE's running game.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
There's a ton of space between "passing game juggernaut" and 9-18 for 84 yards and 2 picks. Let's at least get into that space.
Sure. And if we was that bad every week, I'd be calling for his head, too. But he hasn't been. His Y/A, completion %, and sack rate are basically average. The issue is all in his TD / INT ratio, and those are the most subject to fluctuation.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I've got to really dig into that piece you linked to. There's a lot there. But it certainly goes against logic to think that PA wouldn't be more effective - all other things being equal - for a team with a really good rushing attack compared to a team with a weak rushing attack.
There is a logic to the idea the run game and PA success are linked, but it has been studied many times, and no one has been able to find a correlation. It's like the football equivalent of "lineup protection" arguments in baseball.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Sure. And if we was that bad every week, I'd be calling for his head, too. But he hasn't been. His Y/A, completion %, and sack rate are basically average. The issue is all in his TD / INT ratio, and those are the most subject to fluctuation.
The issue is not all in his TD/INT ratio. He's 23rd in the league in passing yards. He's thrown for half as many 20+ yard plays as the better QBs in the league. You can counter with the fewer attempts, but there's a reason the team won't let him throw the ball even though they've been behind in every game - because he's erratic and unreliable.

He's also throwing an interception once every 29 passes (if there is a QB playing regularly that's getting picked any more frequently, I can't find him).

I would argue he's been well below an average QB this year. Maybe you can identify a handful of starters that are comparable or worse. There's no way you would take him over 15 starters in the NFL right now.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
Ernie Adams said this exact thing in the SB 49 movie regarding Malcolm Butler's INT. 'THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAME DAY PLAYER.' Malcolm made the INT because he practiced that play and put it to execution during the game. Without one there is not the other.

Stidham must be terrible in practice. It's pretty simple, really.
Ken "Game Day" Sims comes to mind.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
Football is a team game, and Philly's skill position group may be the only one in the NFL that I wouldn't trade the entire Pats skill position group straight up for this season. Their leading rusher, Miles Sanders, missed 3 games (Wentz is the 3rd leading rusher on the team, behind Boston Scott), their leading receiver, Greg Ward, played QB at Houston, Ertz and Goedert have both missed almost half of the games, and Richard Rodgers is the 4th leading receiver on the team. If it wasn't for the out-of-nowhere emergence of Travis Fulgham, Wentz' numbers would be even worse. They are a mess.
Thanks for this. Finally saw the Eagles play yesterday and agree with your assessment. That's a horrible group of receivers/runners even accounting for the return of Jeffery who looked slow. I'd add a bad OL line too, but it's not clear to me how much the pressure was on the OL and how much was due to the receivers' separation. Wentz's footwork looked horrible to me - backfoot, not aligning the front foot, etc. - and his throws were inaccurate even when there were openings. It wasn't until he took off on a run and got hit that he woke up and played better afterward. The FO better get some better linemen/receivers in quick or they're going to ruin their big investment with bad habits, mechanics, and happy feet.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,946
The issue is not all in his TD/INT ratio. He's 23rd in the league in passing yards. He's thrown for half as many 20+ yard plays as the better QBs in the league. You can counter with the fewer attempts, but there's a reason the team won't let him throw the ball even though they've been behind in every game - because he's erratic and unreliable.

He's also throwing an interception once every 29 passes (if there is a QB playing regularly that's getting picked any more frequently, I can't find him).

I would argue he's been well below an average QB this year. Maybe you can identify a handful of starters that are comparable or worse. There's no way you would take him over 15 starters in the NFL right now.
Let's also not forget that one absolutely horrendous, game ending fumble against Buffalo inside the 10 yard line, down by 3. Cam Newton is the reason they lost to Denver, and SF and Buffalo, and I would argue Houston too. IMO, they won in spite of Cam against Arizona this past week. Maybe you credit him the win in the Baltimore game (although I'd probably say "BB in bad weather" is the reason), but honestly, the guy is a bottom 5-7 QB in the league right now, among starters, and he has very, very little to work with on top of it.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
Let's also not forget that one absolutely horrendous, game ending fumble against Buffalo inside the 10 yard line, down by 3. Cam Newton is the reason they lost to Denver, and SF and Buffalo, and I would argue Houston too. IMO, they won in spite of Cam against Arizona this past week. Maybe you credit him the win in the Baltimore game (although I'd probably say "BB in bad weather" is the reason), but honestly, the guy is a bottom 5-7 QB in the league right now, among starters, and he has very, very little to work with on top of it.
The defense got absolutely shredded vs San Fran, yeah Cam sucked but they weren't going to win that game anyway. Against Buffalo he led them to 2 late touchdowns before the fumble, and the defense couldn't get a stop. Also arguing that someone who threw for 300+ yards even before the last hail mary and 0 turnovers, while what should be an elite pass defense got dominated by Watson all day, is an interesting take.

It should also be pointed out that while yes the offensive line has been great most of the year they had 5 guys playing out of position vs denver (on essentially 0 practice) and several out of position vs san fran, probably not coincidently 2 of his 3 worst games this year.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Everyone looks better when you start excusing all his worst games and plays.

The excuses even out over the course of the year. His season stats tell us that he is a subpar QB.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,946
The defense got absolutely shredded vs San Fran, yeah Cam sucked but they weren't going to win that game anyway. Against Buffalo he led them to 2 late touchdowns before the fumble, and the defense couldn't get a stop. Also arguing that someone who threw for 300+ yards even before the last hail mary and 0 turnovers, while what should be an elite pass defense got dominated by Watson all day, is an interesting take.

It should also be pointed out that while yes the offensive line has been great most of the year they had 5 guys playing out of position vs denver (on essentially 0 practice) and several out of position vs san fran, probably not coincidently 2 of his 3 worst games this year.
I guess if our new method of evaluating a quarterback is "Fell behind, but brought us back, only to come up short," then yeah, he's been awesome, I guess.

Against SF, yes, it was a team loss that day, but damn, Cam was as bad as any QB has played all year in that game.

Against Buffalo, the Pats had 6 points through the first 42 minutes of the game because Cam, as he's done all year, couldn't find open receivers and threw the ball in the dirt to others. On the 2 late scoring drives, he completed a total of 4 passes, had 7 yards rushing (including a 2 yard td run) and threw a 2 pt conversion. Meanwhile, Damien Harris had 66 yards rushing and a TD on 6 carries on those drives, so yeah, Cam didn't turn it over, but I wouldn't say he all of a sudden turned into TB12. He finished the game with 174 yards passing, an 81.1 rating and of course, a fumble when the team was literally a chip shot away from tying the game, so yeah, I'm blaming him. If Mitch Trubisky had that same game, everyone on this board would be making fun of him, and rightfully so.

Houston has an awful pass defense, they came into the game 2-7 and sure, Cam put up a bunch of yards, but this is 2020, not 2001. Mahomes averages over 300 yards per game. Philip Rivers, who ranks 10th in passing yards this year, averages 270 per game. Cam Newton has had 3 games ALL SEASON where he threw for more than 174 yards. He has a better chance of throwing for 150 yards in a given week than he does throwing for 250 yards. He probably could have thrown for 500 yards in that game if he was capable of hitting guys in stride, or hitting all of the open receivers he misses or doesn't see at all (and don't get me started on his ability to recognize the rush). He had 5 balls batted down at the LOS, 4 by JJ Watt.

In the games the Pats won this year, these are his passing totals:

155 yards
162 yards
274 yards (Jets)
118 yards
84 yards

Sure, he helps some with his legs, but the Pats are competitive in these games and winning some of them solely because of the guy they have on the sidelines. Smoke and mirrors. And ghosts. Lots of ghosts.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
Houston has an awful pass defense, they came into the game 2-7 and sure, Cam put up a bunch of yards, but this is 2020, not 2001. Mahomes averages over 300 yards per game. Philip Rivers, who ranks 10th in passing yards this year, averages 270 per game. Cam Newton has had 3 games ALL SEASON where he threw for more than 174 yards. He has a better chance of throwing for 150 yards in a given week than he does throwing for 250 yards. He probably could have thrown for 500 yards in that game if he was capable of hitting guys in stride, or hitting all of the open receivers he misses or doesn't see at all (and don't get me started on his ability to recognize the rush). He had 5 balls batted down at the LOS, 4 by JJ Watt.

In the games the Pats won this year, these are his passing totals:

155 yards
162 yards
274 yards (Jets)
118 yards
84 yards
Because they're one of the best rushing teams in the league so why would you design a game plan that asks your qb to throw the ball more to mediocre at best weapons? He's 27th in the league in pass attempts, so really not that surprising that he's 23rd in the league in passing yards. He's also 17th in yards per attempt and 17th in yards per catch, which yeah isn't great, but is good enough when you're an elite running team. Since what they do best is run of course he's almost going to always have low passing totals in the games they win because when they get a lead rushing the ball there's no reason to go away from that.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,741
The defense got absolutely shredded vs San Fran, yeah Cam sucked but they weren't going to win that game anyway. Against Buffalo he led them to 2 late touchdowns before the fumble, and the defense couldn't get a stop. Also arguing that someone who threw for 300+ yards even before the last hail mary and 0 turnovers, while what should be an elite pass defense got dominated by Watson all day, is an interesting take.

It should also be pointed out that while yes the offensive line has been great most of the year they had 5 guys playing out of position vs denver (on essentially 0 practice) and several out of position vs san fran, probably not coincidently 2 of his 3 worst games this year.
I swear folks who have taken this position did not watch the game. A QB that has 5 passes swatted at the line and misses a half dozen wide open receivers with absolutely horrible passes, while putting up 20 points, did not have a good game, despite amassing 365 yards in the air against arguably one of the worst pass defenses in the NFL.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
Because they're one of the best rushing teams in the league so why would you design a game plan that asks your qb to throw the ball more to mediocre at best weapons? He's 27th in the league in pass attempts, so really not that surprising that he's 23rd in the league in passing yards. He's also 17th in yards per attempt and 17th in yards per catch, which yeah isn't great, but is good enough when you're an elite running team. Since what they do best is run of course he's almost going to always have low passing totals in the games they win because when they get a lead rushing the ball there's no reason to go away from that.
These mediocre receiving options are getting open for the most part. He’s not finding them. This was always going to be a running offense but he’s objectively been trash throwing the ball almost all season.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
Houston has an awful pass defense, they came into the game 2-7 and sure, Cam put up a bunch of yards, but this is 2020, not 2001.
Speaking of 2001... I keep thinking of that oral history of the 2000 season that was written a few weeks ago. That piece started with BB talking to Herm Edwards before the September 2001 Pats-Jets game, saying that he "didn't know" about his QB (Bledsoe, of course). That was coming after Bledsoe started that season with a 22-38, 241 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT performance in a loss to Cincy. His 2000 season saw him with a 59% completion rate, 17 TDs, 13 INTs and a 6.2 YPA. Those stats weren't particularly good, and yet they were arguably (much?) better than what we've gotten from Cam in 2020. I still trust in Bill, but it's reallllly hard for me to see how Cam will be the best option for 2021, especially given Bill's incredibly blunt assessments of QBs over his career.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,946
Because they're one of the best rushing teams in the league so why would you design a game plan that asks your qb to throw the ball more to mediocre at best weapons? He's 27th in the league in pass attempts, so really not that surprising that he's 23rd in the league in passing yards. He's also 17th in yards per attempt and 17th in yards per catch, which yeah isn't great, but is good enough when you're an elite running team. Since what they do best is run of course he's almost going to always have low passing totals in the games they win because when they get a lead rushing the ball there's no reason to go away from that.
Using yards/game, the Pats rank 5th in rushing. Here are the other top 10 in order:

Cleveland
Baltimore
Tennessee
Arizona
New England
Minnesota
New Orleans
Raiders
Rams
Green Bay

Now, here are the passing td/int #'s for those same 10 teams:

18/7
15/7
23/4
19/9
6/13
23/11
18/4
19/4
16/10
33/4

As you can see, there is a pretty glaring outlier in this list, no? There are plenty of running teams that don't put up huge yards per game, but they do score TD's through the air, and more importantly, they don't throw the ball to the other team. Cam is getting limited opportunities to throw the ball because they run well, and because he sucks, but even in those limited opportunities, he's been dreadful. As a team, the Pats have the 3rd fewest pass attempts in the league, and the 3rd most interceptions (behind Philly and Denver), who have thrown the ball 109 and 75 more times than the Pats, respectively. By almost every objective measure, not to mention the eye test, Cam Newton has not been a good QB this year (and yes, I recognize that some of those stats are from a game he didn't play, so he's responsible for 5td's and 9 picks).