2020 Pats: QB Edition

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
841
J'Mar Smith is kind of interesting, and Evan Lazar and Taylor Kyles have both done really good cutups of his film. It's weird how there was zero buzz on this kid, considering LA Tech is a solid program with a few high quality prospects the past couple of seasons ( e.g., Jaylon Ferguson and Amik Robertson). Every team in the league would have been scouting those two kids, so it's not like Smith could have possibly flown under the radar.

Smith has a live arm, he won games, he's athletic, and he's flashed some really high-end throws. His junior tape against LSU was genuinely impressive. I don't buy that a 2 game suspension his senior year would cause a draft drop, unless it was for something really bad (in which case, you'd think that would have gotten out by now). In a vacuum he looks like a kid you'd want to work with and develop. The camp competition (if there is a camp) between Smith and Lewerke will be interesting, because Lewerke also has some NFL tools. Unless one or both of the rookies look awful this summer, there's no reason not to go with 4 QBs (with one going on the practice squad) this season.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,113
I just can't imagine BB tanking, and #2 - even with no QB, I have a hard time seeing this team being able to tank - I'm not saying they are automatic super bowl contenders, but I feel like if BB decided to coach this season from his living room the team would still win 6 games - too many for Trevor.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,857
That schedule is just brutal, and this team is extremely undertalented on the offensive side of the ball. Even the defense is going to struggle next year since they're not going to be playing with the lead very often. They still have a great secondary, but the options for opponents are going to be vastly expanded when they're playing with a two touchdown lead against a team that's going to have to close that gap with FGs.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,003
That schedule is just brutal, and this team is extremely undertalented on the offensive side of the ball. Even the defense is going to struggle next year since they're not going to be playing with the lead very often. They still have a great secondary, but the options for opponents are going to be vastly expanded when they're playing with a two touchdown lead against a team that's going to have to close that gap with FGs.
We're going to have a lot in common with the 2019 Bears would be my guess, except with one of the harder schedules in the league instead of one of the easier.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,435
Pats 2019 schedule vs. 2020 schedule

2019
vs Pit (7-9)
at Mia (5-11)
vs NYJ (7-9)
at Buf (10-6)*
at Was (3-13)
vs NYG (4-12)
at NYJ (7-9)
vs Cle (6-10)
at Bal (14-2)*
at Phi (9-7)*
vs Dal (8-8)
at Hou (10-6)*
vs KC (12-4)
at Cin (2-14)
at Buf (10-6)*
vs Mia (5-11)
TOT: 119-137 (.465), 6 games vs. playoff opponents


2020
at Buf (10-6)*
at Hou (10-6)*
at KC (12-4)*
at LAC (5-11)
at LAR (9-7)
at Mia (5-11)
at NYJ (7-9)
at Sea (11-5)*
vs Buf (10-6)*
vs Mia (5-11)
vs NYJ (7-9)
vs Den (7-9)
vs LVR (7-9)
vs Ari (5-10-1)
vs SF (13-3)*
vs Bal (14-2)*
TOT: 136-119-1 (.533), 7 games vs. playoff opponents

Common opponents from 2019-2020:
2 vs. Mia (5-11)
2 vs. NYJ (7-9)
2 vs. Buf (10-6)*
vs Bal (14-2)*
vs Hou (10-6)*
vs KC (12-4)*

Different opponents from 2019-2020:
Cin (2-14), Cle (7-9), Pit (8-8) --> LAC (5-11), Den (7-9), LVR (7-9) -- W/L differential: 17-31 in 2019 vs. 19-29 in 2020
Was (3-13), NYG (4-12), Dal (8-8), Phi (9-7)* --> SF (13-3), Sea (11-5)*, Ari (5-10-1), LAR (9-7) -- W/L differential: 24-40 in 2019 vs. 38-25-1 in 2020

I'd suggest that the AFC matchups from 2019-2020 aren't much more difficult. They get Denver at home, which is big. I think the main challenge will be the significant upgrade in opponents from the NFC East to the NFC West.

I also think that NYJ and Miami and even Buffalo are likely to be better in 2020 than they were in 2019.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,613
Hingham, MA
Pats 2019 schedule vs. 2020 schedule

2019
vs Pit (7-9)
at Mia (5-11)
vs NYJ (7-9)
at Buf (10-6)*
at Was (3-13)
vs NYG (4-12)
at NYJ (7-9)
vs Cle (6-10)
at Bal (14-2)*
at Phi (9-7)*
vs Dal (8-8)
at Hou (10-6)*
vs KC (12-4)
at Cin (2-14)
at Buf (10-6)*
vs Mia (5-11)
TOT: 119-137 (.465), 6 games vs. playoff opponents


2020
at Buf (10-6)*
at Hou (10-6)*
at KC (12-4)*
at LAC (5-11)
at LAR (9-7)
at Mia (5-11)
at NYJ (7-9)
at Sea (11-5)*
vs Buf (10-6)*
vs Mia (5-11)
vs NYJ (7-9)
vs Den (7-9)
vs LVR (7-9)
vs Ari (5-10-1)
vs SF (13-3)*
vs Bal (14-2)*
TOT: 136-119-1 (.533), 7 games vs. playoff opponents

Common opponents from 2019-2020:
2 vs. Mia (5-11)
2 vs. NYJ (7-9)
2 vs. Buf (10-6)*
vs Bal (14-2)*
vs Hou (10-6)*
vs KC (12-4)*

Different opponents from 2019-2020:
Cin (2-14), Cle (7-9), Pit (8-8) --> LAC (5-11), Den (7-9), LVR (7-9) -- W/L differential: 17-31 in 2019 vs. 19-29 in 2020
Was (3-13), NYG (4-12), Dal (8-8), Phi (9-7)* --> SF (13-3), Sea (11-5)*, Ari (5-10-1), LAR (9-7) -- W/L differential: 24-40 in 2019 vs. 38-25-1 in 2020

I'd suggest that the AFC matchups from 2019-2020 aren't much more difficult. They get Denver at home, which is big. I think the main challenge will be the significant upgrade in opponents from the NFC East to the NFC West.

I also think that NYJ and Miami and even Buffalo are likely to be better in 2020 than they were in 2019.
Good post. It's the upgrade in the NFC, the AFC East improvements, plus the travel - 2 LA trips and a Seattle trip. The longest trip this year was Houston I think. I think the Houston game was the only non-eastern time zone game, in fact.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,409
Santa Monica, CA
It's the NFL, so you can count on a bunch of those 2020 teams being better or worse than they were in 2019. Coming off the 2018 season, most people thought the Steelers, Cowboys, and Browns were going to be winning teams in 2019 and tough games on the schedule.

It still probably ends up a tougher schedule than this year, but maybe not as tough as we think now.
 

Soxy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
5,603
It's the NFL, so you can count on a bunch of those 2020 teams being better or worse than they were in 2019. Coming off the 2018 season, most people thought the Steelers, Cowboys, and Browns were going to be winning teams in 2019 and tough games on the schedule.

It still probably ends up a tougher schedule than this year, but maybe not as tough as we think now.
Agreed. I don't think anybody should be putting too much emphasis on strength of schedule when the season is this far away. A lot can change over the next few months.

For the Pats, it certainly does look tough on paper. But guys get hurt, players/teams underperform expectations, players/teams overperform expectations, etc.

Raise your hand if you had the Ravens and 49ers as the top seeds in each conference at this time last year.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,003
Rooting for a road-heavy first couple of months (esp. @SEA and @KC). No fans = better chances there.
I think you're better off getting the teams with a lot of turnover early. Shortened camps probably has a bigger effect than no fans.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,892
Oregon
I would guess that every team's early schedule will be focus on games without much travel involved
 
Apr 24, 2019
494
I have no idea if Stidham will be any good or not, but I think he has the makeup, smarts and arm talent to have a plausible shot. What I really know, though, is that it will be fucking hilarious if the Patriots hit on him, and the fandom all around the league has to do deal with BB and Co. winning again sooner than they expected. Just like the on-the brink end of super bowl “Malcolm, Go!” and the ludicrous comeback in super bowl 28-3, they’re dying to kick New England when they’re down. Is it too much to ask for one more comeuppance?

Answer: It is absolutely and undeniably asking too much. (I’m asking anyway.)
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
14,727
The cradle of the game.
Just rewatched the 2017 Iron Bowl when Auburn beat the previously undefeated Alabama. JS was 21/28 for 237, 12 rushes for 51 yards including a gutsy TD. Offensive play calling more focused on Kerryon Johnson, but even as a Sophomore, every throw was quick, tight and accurate. Mishandled a couple garbage snaps in the shotgun, but seemed generally poised under pressure from the excellent Alabama defense. As color commentator Gary Danielson mentioned more than once, it was surprising Auburn wasn't throwing more, because JS was slinging it that day.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,576
Palo Alto
His mobility alone is going to be a revelation. I'm sure this has been posted before, but watch it again for awhile. Then when you want a lump in your throat, scroll to 10:30.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hdu9qClTrg
Has it always been this way or has anyone noticed that Last of the Mohicans soundtrack is suddenly showing up in every sports highlight video? Its a great track but I like a little more variety in my highlight cut DJs.
 

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
36,314
New England Patriots quarterback Jarrett Stidham is looking at surprisingly favorable MVP odds.

He’s got the same odds to win as quarterbacks Josh Allen, Jimmy Garoppolo, Matt Ryan, Matthew Stafford and Ben Roethlisberger and running backs Saquon Barkley, Derrick Henry and Christian McCaffrey.
View: https://twitter.com/DKSportsbook/status/1268637916689059852

31638
How many of our gamblers here would take these odds?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,435
Same odds as Matt Ryan, who won the award just a few years ago and who still has Julio Jones.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
23,771
I think that’s a fairly ridiculous number to bet on.

That said, I can also imagine the narrative—imagine Stidham is accurate, provides a bit different look than Brady, and rides a great defense to 11 or 12 wins. It’s not what I expect, but not inconceivable and media members will eat that up and generate support even if he’s just “game manager” level.

So, possible that is sitting behind the odds?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
41,553
Maybe +5000 is simply the longest odds you can get on anyone that has a "name" (for whatever reason) that plays a position of note on a team of note?
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think that’s a fairly ridiculous number to bet on.

That said, I can also imagine the narrative—imagine Stidham is accurate, provides a bit different look than Brady, and rides a great defense to 11 or 12 wins. It’s not what I expect, but not inconceivable and media members will eat that up and generate support even if he’s just “game manager” level.

So, possible that is sitting behind the odds?
Do NFL awards have the same dumb 'new guy' bias as MLB awards?
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,218
Waltham, MA
Hey gang, it looks like Cam and Kaepernick are getting a serious look in Foxboro <ducks>.
JT The Brick
@JTTheBrick
Whispered in hush tones from moles in New England about two famous quarterbacks who have been around the #Patriots facility.
One for a medical review and one for a talk. Hey @LooneyonFox this could be our next podcast!
View: https://twitter.com/JTTheBrick/status/1271203727567806465
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,003
I would take either in a heartbeat if the price is right, huge ceiling on both. Cam the question is health, Kap what years away has done, but both have been very good NFL QBs you can build a title contender around. Stidham has that upside.... maybe, Hoyer obviously isn't close.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
41,553
I don't think I want to pay Newton what he'll want. As for as Kaepernick, he's 32 now and been away from the game a few years. And his last tryout seemed a little...off. Although I guess if BB wanted him, I'd be fine because I'd assume he is.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
I would take neither. Cam and kapernick are not winning the Patriots a Super Bowl and aren't even the future. They need to see what they have with Stidham and if he falls flat then they can reset the position the next season. If he doesn't and they have success then they have a young cheap QB.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
1,022
I would take neither. Cam and kapernick are not winning the Patriots a Super Bowl and aren't even the future. They need to see what they have with Stidham and if he falls flat then they can reset the position the next season. If he doesn't and they have success then they have a young cheap QB.
Agreed overall. I suppose Kaepernick is mildly more interesting because he'd presumably be looking at a backup job and there's a nonzero chance he's better than Hoyer. And like many here I'm still rooting for any scenario where he gets another crack at the NFL. I'm fine with any move where injury (or incredible suck on an otherwise tier 1 team, which it's unlikely they have) are the only scenarios where the team deviates from seeing what they have in Stidham. No chance Cam signs up for that, and I don't blame him.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
16,296
Cam needs a Jim Plunkett 1979 season. I doubt he thinks so.
And unfortunately for him, Oakland in '79 still had a reasonably effective Stabler at QB so there weren't daily questions about "when's Plunk taking over?" like there would be if he was here and BB wanted to give Stidham a real shot.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,003
I would take neither. Cam and kapernick are not winning the Patriots a Super Bowl and aren't even the future. They need to see what they have with Stidham and if he falls flat then they can reset the position the next season. If he doesn't and they have success then they have a young cheap QB.
I'm not sure about either the former or the later. This team could arguably win the Super Bowl with a good Cam season, since a good Cam season is one of the better QBs in the league. As to future? Cam Newton is 31, he has an entire team cycle left at least before you start seriously worrying about age decline.

I mean, if you are taking bets on the better QB over the next 4 years between Cam and Stidham, Cam would be the HEAVY favorite, the question with him is health and price. If he's willing to sign for backup money neither of those matter.

The Patriots have had 3 QBs drafted in the Brady era go on to be starters elsewhere, none of them are as good as Cam Newton. Stidham would have to happen to be the best QB they've drafted in 20+ years coming around at exactly the right time to be better.

Edit- to me another factor is that this team is too good to be really bad, the defense is still very good, the O-line is good. So if Stidham is bad, the team is mediocre, if Stidham is good the team is above average, With the insurance of Cam (or Kap but he's more of a wildcard) you are getting rid of the mediocre option. The team will likely either be above average or very good depending on whether you get pretty good Cam, or all-league talent healthy Cam).
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
I'm not sure about either the former or the later. This team could arguably win the Super Bowl with a good Cam season, since a good Cam season is one of the better QBs in the league. As to future? Cam Newton is 31, he has an entire team cycle left at least before you start seriously worrying about age decline.

I mean, if you are taking bets on the better QB over the next 4 years between Cam and Stidham, Cam would be the HEAVY favorite, the question with him is health and price. If he's willing to sign for backup money neither of those matter.

The Patriots have had 3 QBs drafted in the Brady era go on to be starters elsewhere, none of them are as good as Cam Newton. Stidham would have to happen to be the best QB they've drafted in 20+ years coming around at exactly the right time to be better.
I worry that Newton will never be the same player after the foot injury and his whole game is based on movement in and out of the pocket. If he doesn't have that then he is pretty useless.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
2,977
Bow, NH
I would take neither. Cam and kapernick are not winning the Patriots a Super Bowl and aren't even the future. They need to see what they have with Stidham and if he falls flat then they can reset the position the next season. If he doesn't and they have success then they have a young cheap QB.
Completely agree
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,359
AZ
I would be proud of my favorite team if they used a roster spot for Kaep and gave him a legitimate chance. I would love to see him on the team on opening day. Whether or not he could help win.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,624
I would take Kap if he understood that he was coming in as a backup. Backups can't be counted on to win Superbowls - they are there to avoid forfeits. Kap was never a good candidate to back up Brady because their styles were so different. That's not the case with Stidham.

Bringing in Kap is not a pure football move. It is also a political statement, one that should be made.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,003
I worry that Newton will never be the same player after the foot injury and his whole game is based on movement in and out of the pocket. If he doesn't have that then he is pretty useless.
Sure, which would matter if you were talking about a big contract, but if you're talking a Jameis style take a look deal, who cares.

The thing in this thread I don't get is everyone seems to oppose maximizing the value of roster spots, which I don't get. You can make Stidham the starter and have a good backup, in fact that's what you should do. Neither of these guys would prevent a position reset in the future.

Also, there is a scenario people are also ignoring......

What if Stidham is really good, the team gets off to a great start, and then he gets hurt. Now you have Hoyer and you've tanked a good year because you mismanaged the backup QB position for fear of what?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,831
Mansfield MA
They need to see what they have with Stidham and if he falls flat then they can reset the position the next season. If he doesn't and they have success then they have a young cheap QB.
A possibility, and I would argue even a probability, that people aren't considering enough is that Stidham is not very good but not very bad and after a year starting we still don't know what we have. Look at the 2018 draft class: do the Browns know what they have in Baker Mayfield? The Jets with Darnold? The Bills with Allen? At the extremes (Rosen and Jackson) teams know, but most young QBs are in the middle, kinda bad but not without promise. Hell, you could argue we still don't know what guys like Tannehill, Garoppolo, and Goff are and they've been in the league years now.

I worry that Newton will never be the same player after the foot injury and his whole game is based on movement in and out of the pocket. If he doesn't have that then he is pretty useless.
This is a concern. It's also a concern that Stidham might be bad. So there are tradeoffs to make here.
 

Bongorific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,282
Balboa Towers
I would be proud of my favorite team if they used a roster spot for Kaep and gave him a legitimate chance. I would love to see him on the team on opening day. Whether or not he could help win.
I’m onboard with this.
From a talent perspective, though, I’m not sure what to expect. A lot of his talent was built on his athleticism and run threat option. How much of that is still there? He had multiple surgeries, is 32, and was losing starting time to Blaine Gabbert the last time we saw him.
He should absolutely have been given a backup/play into the starting position Chance somewhere, but I think a lot remember him as the Super Bowl QB and not how we was playing towards the end.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,003
I’m onboard with this.
From a talent perspective, though, I’m not sure what to expect. A lot of his talent was built on his athleticism and run threat option. How much of that is still there? He had multiple surgeries, is 32, and was losing starting time to Blaine Gabbert the last time we saw him.
He should absolutely have been given a backup/play into the starting position Chance somewhere, but I think a lot remember him as the Super Bowl QB and not how we was playing towards the end.
I think you are also misremembering his last year the other way. He was on one of the worst rosters in the NFL, and wasn't losing playing time for performance, he was across the board much much better than Gabbert. He was 13th in TD%, 6th in INT%, 16th in AY/A. He also got sacked an insane amount, some of which is on him, but much of which is also on his terrible supporting cast.

When Kaepernick last played he was probably somewhere between right in the middle and slightly above average of the league's starters, and exactly the type of player who should have gotten another chance given his exceptionally low INT rate.

Of course, it's been years so who knows what he looks like now, you can stay in shape, even improve mechanics, but not playing could change how you perform against real defense.
 

Bongorific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,282
Balboa Towers
I think you are also misremembering his last year the other way. He was on one of the worst rosters in the NFL, and wasn't losing playing time for performance, he was across the board much much better than Gabbert. He was 13th in TD%, 6th in INT%, 16th in AY/A. He also got sacked an insane amount, some of which is on him, but much of which is also on his terrible supporting cast.

When Kaepernick last played he was probably somewhere between right in the middle and slightly above average of the league's starters, and exactly the type of player who should have gotten another chance given his exceptionally low INT rate.

Of course, it's been years so who knows what he looks like now, you can stay in shape, even improve mechanics, but not playing could change how you perform against real defense.
Yeah I think average to slightly above average is fair. His TD/Int during his full seasons isn’t great, but his dual threat abilities helped him a lot. I’m wondering how much of that aspect will come back at his age and time away from the game. But someone should have absolutely given him the chance to find out over the last several seasons.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,408
Portsmouth, NH
I would take neither. Cam and kapernick are not winning the Patriots a Super Bowl and aren't even the future. They need to see what they have with Stidham and if he falls flat then they can reset the position the next season. If he doesn't and they have success then they have a young cheap QB.
This.
Posters thinking the Pats are contenders this year - even with prime Newton - are kidding themselves imo. If they finish .500 I’ll be impressed
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,003
This.
Posters thinking the Pats are contenders this year - even with prime Newton - are kidding themselves imo. If they finish .500 I’ll be impressed
Wait, so you think this team, taking QB out of the equation is at least 4 games worse than last year's?
That's a ton of faith in Collins and Van Noy (and none at all in Andrews).
 

kelpapa

Costanza's Hero
SoSH Member
Feb 15, 2010
3,358
This.
Posters thinking the Pats are contenders this year - even with prime Newton - are kidding themselves imo. If they finish .500 I’ll be impressed
The Pat's over under line for wins is 9 or 9.5 in the top four articles I googled. .500 isn't that impressive.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
35,397
This.
Posters thinking the Pats are contenders this year - even with prime Newton - are kidding themselves imo. If they finish .500 I’ll be impressed
What? Prime Newton had a near 100 rating and took his team to a 15-1 record and a SB berth. Prime Newton is a significantly better player than 2019 Brady. If Pats get prime Newton, they are absolutely a contender. The defense still figures to be good to very good next year.

The problem is that prime Newton is likely gone for good so the Pats are clearly weighing lesser Newton vs. seeing what they have in Stidham. And I don’t blame them for going with the latter.