2020 Pats: QB Situation Beyond Cam

Garshaparra

lurker
Feb 27, 2008
238
McCarver's Mushy Mouth
Stidham's both nursing an injury and ill-suited for the strength of this team, RPO. Brissett has shown good wheels when given the chance to run (56 rushes in 2019, 4.1 yards per). Pats have the cap room for sure. It's just a matter of what Indy would be willing to accept in return, as it puts their season at risk to be down their solid backup.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
6,789
New York City
Leaving Hoyer in as long as he did was stupid on Belichick’s part IMO, but I think people are getting a bit too hung up on the backup QB situation. Ultimately if any NFL team’s #1 QB gets hurt or can’t play the team is going to take a major hit, with obvious occasional exceptions like Brady and Foles.

I mean, the Chiefs backup is Chad Henne. If the situation was reversed and it was Newton against Henne the Pats probably would have walked all over the Chiefs.

Giving up actual assets for a backup QB (whether that be Brissett or anyone else) just wouldn’t be a good use of resources.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,258
Hingham, MA
Leaving Hoyer in as long as he did was stupid on Belichick’s part IMO, but I think people are getting a bit too hung up on the backup QB situation. Ultimately if any NFL team’s #1 QB gets hurt or can’t play the team is going to take a major hit, with obvious occasional exceptions like Brady and Foles.

I mean, the Chiefs backup is Chad Henne. If the situation was reversed and it was Newton against Henne the Pats probably would have walked all over the Chiefs.

Giving up actual assets for a backup QB (whether that be Brissett or anyone else) just wouldn’t be a good use of resources.
Agreed all around.

If the Pats really wanted Brissett though, I bet they could trade Hoyer + a 6th or whatever for Brissett. Then the Colts would have a backup QB who knows their system.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,643
Santa Monica, CA
I'm curious - how many of us have essentially written off Stidham at this point as a future starter?

Obviously he has not had much game experience, and he does have some positive skills...but if, for example, you look at every guy who has turned out to be a good NFL starter this century, have any of their careers started out like Stidham's?
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
1,069
I went into the 2019 draft as a Stidham Truther, so I'm not going to give up on him just yet. It's just so hard to judge him based off of 23 passes this year, where both games he came off the bench cold and behind in the game. I'd really like to see a 3-4 game stretch where he's the starter and he's getting the practice reps and then seeing how he looks in that environment.

I'm decidedly less optimistic on him now vs. where I was before, but so much is TBD. Is he a legit, cheap, cost-controlled backup for 2 years? That's really good for a late 4th round pick. Is he Nathan Peterman? That's...less good. Is he the guy I thought he'd be going into the year (and before Cam came on board)? We won't know unless/until he's put in a reasonable position to succeed.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,324
Mock draft at cbssports:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2021-nfl-mock-draft-bears-reset-at-qb-with-georgias-jt-daniels-packers-pick-wide-receiver/
They have the Pats picking Kyle Trask with the #13 pick. They have 5 QBs taken in the first round:

1. NYJ - Trevor Lawrence
2. Jax - Justin Fields
5. Was - Zach Wilson
10. Car - Trey Lance
13. NE - Kyle Trask
16. Chi - JT Daniels

Again, Mac Jones is nowhere on the list despite him being pretty frigging awesome. Right now, cbssports doesn't even have Jones among the top 9 QB prospects for the draft.

https://draftwire.usatoday.com/gallery/nfl-draft-rankings-2021-quarterback-updated-trevor-lawrence-justin-fields-trey-lance/
Has him (Jones) as the #6 QB ranked.

Anyway, if Trask was available for the Pats in the first round, would you guys want them to take him? Or go for some other guy at some other position?
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,373
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I would take JG in a heartbeat over Cam next year. THAT BEING SAID...not if the cost of JG means we cant afford the weapons we so desperately need (and have needed for years)
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
8,026
Duval
Mock draft at cbssports:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2021-nfl-mock-draft-bears-reset-at-qb-with-georgias-jt-daniels-packers-pick-wide-receiver/
They have the Pats picking Kyle Trask with the #13 pick. They have 5 QBs taken in the first round:

1. NYJ - Trevor Lawrence
2. Jax - Justin Fields
5. Was - Zach Wilson
10. Car - Trey Lance
13. NE - Kyle Trask
16. Chi - JT Daniels

Again, Mac Jones is nowhere on the list despite him being pretty frigging awesome. Right now, cbssports doesn't even have Jones among the top 9 QB prospects for the draft.

https://draftwire.usatoday.com/gallery/nfl-draft-rankings-2021-quarterback-updated-trevor-lawrence-justin-fields-trey-lance/
Has him (Jones) as the #6 QB ranked.

Anyway, if Trask was available for the Pats in the first round, would you guys want them to take him? Or go for some other guy at some other position?
Please, no Trask. I watch almost every Gator game and he doesn’t have good pocket presence/awareness and makes about one Carson Wentz level bad decision a game. He’s Sam Darnold.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I would take JG in a heartbeat over Cam next year. THAT BEING SAID...not if the cost of JG means we cant afford the weapons we so desperately need (and have needed for years)
Agreed. But it f he gets cut, he may prefer to re-sign to reestablish his career where he knows the system. IOW, I’m hoping for him coming in at no acquisition cost and a reasonable contract — not Cam-bargain basement rate, but something well below top 10 QB rate (which seems to be given out to the top 20 QBs).
I’d rather Jimmy G than a rookie or a newcomer/reclamation project (eg Sam Darnold).
 
Apr 24, 2019
838
Jimmy fits the system, knows the system, is more accurate, throws a more consistent deep ball, is much better in the short-passing game and is younger. His main issue is health, which is also a Cam issue.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
7,470
Dallas
37006


Above is the Rich Hill 2.0 value chart hosted on Drafttek.

Assuming they want to get to 3 or 4 for a QB it's possible. I know they have a lot of holes. Their 3rd round comp is pick 97 worth 39.

I think they will finish somewhere between 11th and 17th. Let's see how the scenarios play out. A future 2nd is worth half the value of your current 2nd. BB has only traded a future pick once, last year.

37008


So depending on where they finish they should be able to figure out some combination that satisfies everyone if they want to trade up for a QB.
 

Attachments

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
View attachment 37006


Above is the Rich Hill 2.0 value chart hosted on Drafttek.

Assuming they want to get to 3 or 4 for a QB it's possible. I know they have a lot of holes. Their 3rd round comp is pick 97 worth 39.

I think they will finish somewhere between 11th and 17th. Let's see how the scenarios play out. A future 2nd is worth half the value of your current 2nd. BB has only traded a future pick once, last year.

View attachment 37008


So depending on where they finish they should be able to figure out some combination that satisfies everyone if they want to trade up for a QB.
If Dallas brings back Dak, that means that 3, 4, 5 are likely all set for QB so could be ripe for trading down. OTOH, 6, 7, 8, 9 are likely all in the search for a QB (plus 1 + 2 of course).
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,373
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I don’t think this is the year to trade up for QB. I think that they have far too many holes. I’d rather them finally draft a TE, draft a legit WR, shore up their defense. I’m not sure what the 2021 answer at QB is.

JG only has 2 years left on his deal. Maybe see if you can bring him back for a 2 year run during which we try again to find a young QB to groom. If JG reverts back to a capable QB he stays another few years. If not maybe we have someone new.

That said give me a QB with at least average QB instincts please.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I don’t think this is the year to trade up for QB. I think that they have far too many holes. I’d rather them finally draft a TE, draft a legit WR, shore up their defense. I’m not sure what the 2021 answer at QB is.

JG only has 2 years left on his deal. Maybe see if you can bring him back for a 2 year run during which we try again to find a young QB to groom. If JG reverts back to a capable QB he stays another few years. If not maybe we have someone new.

That said give me a QB with at least average QB instincts please.
I agree with you on Jimmy G and on putting draft capital elsewhere, trying to fill multiple holes rather than a single one. My post about drafting up should have noted that there are likely 6 teams in the top 9 looking for a QB, so the cost might be high to draft up.
 
Apr 24, 2019
838
I'm all for drafting a QB in round one or trading for a legit vet QB like Stafford with a high-ish pick. There's a decent chance they could sign Hunter Henry to a big deal in FA, and all of a sudden a TE depth chart of HENRY, ASIASI & KEENE has the potential to be pretty good. It would be light years better than the last couple at TE, just with Henry alone. That helps the QB a lot, obviously. Spending draft capital on a guy like, say, Zach Wilson or Mac Jones (or Stafford) and arming him with major upgrade at TE and a free agent WR like Allen Robinson, pushing Harry-Meyers-Byrd down to more appropriate slots starts to make this offense look somewhat dynamic and much improved.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,947
I would be fine if we could somehow get Jimmy G on the vet minimum to hold the fort while a rookie learns the playbook, but he has 1 year of being good and healthy, with arguably the best offensive coordinator in the league on a stacked team with explosive playmakers. I don't see how anyone looks at his career and sees a reliable league average or better starter.

I also don't think "he knows the system" matters. He knows the system from 5 years ago, which was built to take advantage of the talent we had then. The system was pretty different last year, and was rebuilt for Cam. I'm sure Bill and Josh will build out the system next year based on the QB, not chase a QB to fit a system.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
39,585
I would be fine if we could somehow get Jimmy G on the vet minimum to hold the fort while a rookie learns the playbook, but he has 1 year of being good and healthy, with arguably the best offensive coordinator in the league on a stacked team with explosive playmakers. I don't see how anyone looks at his career and sees a reliable league average or better starter.

I also don't think "he knows the system" matters. He knows the system from 5 years ago, which was built to take advantage of the talent we had then. The system was pretty different last year, and was rebuilt for Cam. I'm sure Bill and Josh will build out the system next year based on the QB, not chase a QB to fit a system.
The only way Jimmy G plays for peanuts next year is if he suffers a major injury in the offseason. His injury concerns are valid but he’s 1 year removed from a near SB win and is only 29 years-old. There is no guarantee that SF is moving on from him.
 

leetinsley38

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
710
SF Bay Area
The only way Jimmy G plays for peanuts next year is if he suffers a major injury in the offseason. His injury concerns are valid but he’s 1 year removed from a near SB win and is only 29 years-old. There is no guarantee that SF is moving on from him.
The Nick Mullens is just as good as Jimmy G train/line of thinking has come crashing to a halt. They are built to win next year once Bosa and the rest of their guys get healthy. Makes the most sense for 49ers to keep Jimmy G but also try and draft/develop too.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
39,585
The Nick Mullens is just as good as Jimmy G train/line of thinking has come crashing to a halt. They are built to win next year once Bosa and the rest of their guys get healthy. Makes the most sense for 49ers to keep Jimmy G but also try and draft/develop too.
Agreed. In the NFL you don’t cast QBs away unless you have a clear upgrade ready to go. Not sure where that upgrade would come from with SF since the list of available QBs stinks outside of Dak, who isn’t leaving Dallas. If anything, they’ll keep Jimmy and possibly target a guy like Wilson or Lance in the draft to develop for the future.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
7,470
Dallas
Jimmy G can't stay healthy though. Past 4 seasons in SF he has been in 6, 3, 16, and 6 games. 2019 was nice but I think Jimmy G is not nearly as good as he is held here. He can't elevate guys like other QBs. Very much a see-it throw it type too. I don't think he is anything more than a middling stop-gap unfortunately. There aren't a ton of good options at QB. I think you could win with either Cam or Jimmy G (and Stidham and Jimmy G have a lot in common imo) but neither is going to be able to elevate their WRs a great deal.
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
1,069
They're likely going to need a bridge QB, and Jimmy G would certainly make sense. A guy who I think would be interesting is Trubisky. For all the jokes, he's 23-12 as a starter the past 2.5 seasons. It's not like those were crazy talented Bears teams, either. Were they winning because of him? I'm not saying that. But they still won the games with him as QB. He clearly has the physical talent that made him the 2nd pick of his draft. It's not a clean 100% apples-to-apples, but there are some parallels to Trubisky and Tannehill. Trubisky takes way too many sacks, but some of the raw numbers look genuinely promising with him.

NE will probably be an attractive destination for any of the bridge QB candidates because: A) they have money to pay the QB, B) they have money to add to the roster, C) a coaching staff payers and agents respect. A 2 year, $20m ($10m/year) bridge contract should be enough in the 2021 reduced cap landscape, while also allowing NE the flexibility to plug some roster holes and start building towards the next iteration of the franchise.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
39,585
Jimmy G can't stay healthy though. Past 4 seasons in SF he has been in 6, 3, 16, and 6 games. 2019 was nice but I think Jimmy G is not nearly as good as he is held here. He can't elevate guys like other QBs. Very much a see-it throw it type too. I don't think he is anything more than a middling stop-gap unfortunately. There aren't a ton of good options at QB. I think you could win with either Cam or Jimmy G (and Stidham and Jimmy G have a lot in common imo) but neither is going to be able to elevate their WRs a great deal.
Well, we currently have a “don’t see it, throw it into the ground or a lineman’s hands” QB so Jimmy G would be an improvement.

I don’t think anyone thinks Jimmy G is the “answer” at QB but, if he becomes available, he’d be worth a shot at short money, IMO. Problem with committing to Jimmy is that you’re also basically committing to your backup at one point as well. And we don’t like our current one at all.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
39,585
They're likely going to need a bridge QB, and Jimmy G would certainly make sense. A guy who I think would be interesting is Trubisky. For all the jokes, he's 23-12 as a starter the past 2.5 seasons. It's not like those were crazy talented Bears teams, either. Were they winning because of him? I'm not saying that. But they still won the games with him as QB. He clearly has the physical talent that made him the 2nd pick of his draft. It's not a clean 100% apples-to-apples, but there are some parallels to Trubisky and Tannehill. Trubisky takes way too many sacks, but some of the raw numbers look genuinely promising with him.

NE will probably be an attractive destination for any of the bridge QB candidates because: A) they have money to pay the QB, B) they have money to add to the roster, C) a coaching staff payers and agents respect. A 2 year, $20m ($10m/year) bridge contract should be enough in the 2021 reduced cap landscape, while also allowing NE the flexibility to plug some roster holes and start building towards the next iteration of the franchise.
I do think Trubisky does get kind of a bad rap. It's all obviously driven by where he was drafted and who he was selected before but if you exclude his rookie season where almost all QBs either don't play or suck, then he's got a 23-12 record (as you mention above), a 54/27 TD/INT ratio, and a QB rating of about 90.

If you attached those stats to a 3rd or 4th round QB prospect, you'd be talking about him much differently.

Ultimately, the main issue with Trubisky is that he tends to make a lot of mental mistakes. The physical skills are there but I do think he'd be a decent reclamation project for Josh if other options don't materialize.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,416
Mansfield MA
They're likely going to need a bridge QB, and Jimmy G would certainly make sense. A guy who I think would be interesting is Trubisky. For all the jokes, he's 23-12 as a starter the past 2.5 seasons. It's not like those were crazy talented Bears teams, either. Were they winning because of him? I'm not saying that. But they still won the games with him as QB. He clearly has the physical talent that made him the 2nd pick of his draft. It's not a clean 100% apples-to-apples, but there are some parallels to Trubisky and Tannehill. Trubisky takes way too many sacks, but some of the raw numbers look genuinely promising with him.
My issue with a guy like Trubisky (or Darnold) is that there's a good chance he's just terrible, and I want heavy competition for a guy like that. Bring in Trubs to compete with Stidham for the backup / 3rd QB role, fine. But I still want someone with more starter potential, whether that's a draft pick or a veteran.
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
1,069
My issue with a guy like Trubisky (or Darnold) is that there's a good chance he's just terrible, and I want heavy competition for a guy like that. Bring in Trubs to compete with Stidham for the backup / 3rd QB role, fine. But I still want someone with more starter potential, whether that's a draft pick or a veteran.
I agree that Darnold is very likely terrible. Trubisky has generally been competent, with signs that he could be more than competent. I just don't see too many better options. For a draft pick, they'll have to trade up (and they're already short their 3rd rounder). They just don't have a viable path for finishing in the top 10, which is where they'll likely need to be. None of the 2nd tier QB prospects will be clearly better options than Trubisky, at least in 2021. As for veterans, who is going to be out there? Dak is likely going to get tagged. If not, that's going to be a $40m/year contract for a guy who I like, but am not convinced is elite. Carr? I think NE's game plan against LV showed what BB thought of him and I'm not sure LV will be moving on from him anyhow. Stafford might be available via trade and he's clearly talented. But again, no guarantee he'll be available or what it would cost in compensation. But Stafford would be intriguing.

Trubisky will almost definitely be available (hard to see how Chicago can tag him when they're up against the cap and have a good chunk tied to Foles that will be hard to move on from). He's still relatively young (will be 27 next season), and has shown signs of promise. Not a bad bridge option while figuring out if there's legitimately something there or treading water until the next opportunity presents itself.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,947
Trubuisky is weird in that he's sometimes good but when he's bad he'd TERRIBLE. I also worry about him that they really did a ton to try and scheme him easy throws and it doesn't matter. Most games I watch it's 20% good throws, 20% mediocre throws, 20% terrible throws that Allen Robinson goes and steals from the DB and 40% absolute garbage throws.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
12,562
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
How many guys could they reasonably bring in next year before it's too many? I could see them bringing in a few guys like Trubisky, Darnold, Wentz, Cam, Stidham, and a rookie and seeing who wins out.

My gut feeling is 3 is the max you could play and still have enough time to evaluate, but I don't have anything to back that up.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,947
How many guys could they reasonably bring in next year before it's too many? I could see them bringing in a few guys like Trubisky, Darnold, Wentz, Cam, Stidham, and a rookie and seeing who wins out.

My gut feeling is 3 is the max you could play and still have enough time to evaluate, but I don't have anything to back that up.
My guess is that the answer is... 1 of those guys. First, at least two of them will take trades, and you aren't making multiple trades for reclamation QBs. Second issue is, what system do you want to run? You can adjust your system to QB, but say Trubisky and Darnold.... I wouldn't think you'd run the same system for those 2, so are you building out a much bigger playbook to accomodate both? Third is going to be convincing their agent to sign into a crowded QB room like that, over either a guaranteed starting gig, or a more clearly structured scenario of becoming the heir apparent (not that it can't go wrong, see Jameis going to NO then getting stuck behind Hill).

In the end, my guess is none of those guys is a Patriot come 2021 opening night.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
39,585
My guess is that the answer is... 1 of those guys. First, at least two of them will take trades, and you aren't making multiple trades for reclamation QBs. Second issue is, what system do you want to run? You can adjust your system to QB, but say Trubisky and Darnold.... I wouldn't think you'd run the same system for those 2, so are you building out a much bigger playbook to accomodate both? Third is going to be convincing their agent to sign into a crowded QB room like that, over either a guaranteed starting gig, or a more clearly structured scenario of becoming the heir apparent (not that it can't go wrong, see Jameis going to NO then getting stuck behind Hill).

In the end, my guess is none of those guys is a Patriot come 2021 opening night.
Agreed. I think next year's QB situation is probably:

1. Vet reclamation project signing/trade
2. Stidham
3. Draft pick

I don't anticipate much different QB situation in 2021 than in 2020. Shoot, I wouldn't even rule out Cam returning. I certainly wouldn't be excited about it but can't be ruled out yet either if other options fail.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,947
Also, while we're talking vet reclamation projects....

Jameis.

I get it, he throws too many picks, but he's going to be available for the minimum, and he has clear arm talent. I don't think he's significantly worse than a number of the more expensive options mentioned (Wentz, Trubisky, etc.) and given he just spent a year as the 3rd string QB in NO, I think he's a guy you can bring in and not worry about whether he'll be unhappy in a backup role if he loses the camp competition.

I would be pretty happy opening camp with a QB room of:

Rookie
Jameis on the minimum
Second vet FA (Taylor, Brissett, Dalton, Smith etc.)
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,304
New York City
Trubuisky is weird in that he's sometimes good but when he's bad he'd TERRIBLE. I also worry about him that they really did a ton to try and scheme him easy throws and it doesn't matter. Most games I watch it's 20% good throws, 20% mediocre throws, 20% terrible throws that Allen Robinson goes and steals from the DB and 40% absolute garbage throws.
At some minimal cost Darnold or Trubisky make sense and given the limited market it wouldn't be shocking if we saw one of them here, but they both seem like bad fits for what BB usually wants--i.e., smart and accurate guys who don't turn it over. They're both physically talented players who can make unbelievable throws but aren't particularly accurate, turn the ball over quite a bit, make a lot of dumb plays, and aren't showing a ton of improvement despite having now started a fair number of games (35 for Darnold, 47 for trubinsky)
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
13,195
UWS, NYC
I'd guess Mullen could be on the list as Second vet FA as well... the last couple of weeks have probably given lie to the possibility he could be a prospect as your starter, but he's Shanahan-trained and has had some success as a starter.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
3,624
I really don’t want Trubisky because most of all I want the Pats to sign Allen Robinson and I just couldn’t do that to ARob.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,134
If were gonna gamble on a QB to be upper tier, isnt Wentz the best option?

Throw Philly a 3rd rounder - 2nd if you have to - and cross your fingers you can get him back on track to be a franchise QB.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,416
Mansfield MA
Also, while we're talking vet reclamation projects....

Jameis.

I get it, he throws too many picks, but he's going to be available for the minimum, and he has clear arm talent. I don't think he's significantly worse than a number of the more expensive options mentioned (Wentz, Trubisky, etc.) and given he just spent a year as the 3rd string QB in NO, I think he's a guy you can bring in and not worry about whether he'll be unhappy in a backup role if he loses the camp competition.

I would be pretty happy opening camp with a QB room of:

Rookie
Jameis on the minimum
Second vet FA (Taylor, Brissett, Dalton, Smith etc.)
As you note, there are compelling reasons to be intrigued by Jameis from an on-field standpoint, but he is a possible / probable rapist. I'd be disappointed if they went in this direction.

If were gonna gamble on a QB to be upper tier, isnt Wentz the best option?

Throw Philly a 3rd rounder - 2nd if you have to - and cross your fingers you can get him back on track to be a franchise QB.
Wentz' contract for a trading team basically becomes 1 year guaranteed at $25-something MM (2021), plus three non-guaranteed years totalling $65 MM (2022-2024). The upside is pretty clearly there of getting a franchise guy for four years control at reasonable salary. I'm presuming the cost to acquire would be low, as Philadelphia would be pretty excited to get our of his guaranteed 2021 money. That's still a lot to guarantee a guy who was maybe the worst QB in the league this year.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,947
If were gonna gamble on a QB to be upper tier, isnt Wentz the best option?

Throw Philly a 3rd rounder - 2nd if you have to - and cross your fingers you can get him back on track to be a franchise QB.
He's a much bigger gamble considering his salary and contract situation. He's the most expensive of the bunch by a clear margin, so no I don't see him as the best option at all.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
45,606
I don't anticipate much different QB situation in 2021 than in 2020. Shoot, I wouldn't even rule out Cam returning. I certainly wouldn't be excited about it but can't be ruled out yet either if other options fail.
It's not the cook, it's the ingredients. Brady's last 8 games last season with minimal skill position help--80.8 QB rating, completing 57% of his passes. They need help, no matter who it is. The team is going to spend in the offseason on skill players--they have to.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,947
At some minimal cost Darnold or Trubisky make sense and given the limited market it wouldn't be shocking if we saw one of them here, but they both seem like bad fits for what BB usually wants--i.e., smart and accurate guys who don't turn it over. They're both physically talented players who can make unbelievable throws but aren't particularly accurate, turn the ball over quite a bit, make a lot of dumb plays, and aren't showing a ton of improvement despite having now started a fair number of games (35 for Darnold, 47 for trubinsky)
Darnold is interesting to me to an extent because unlike Trubisky he's never really had good coaching or talent around him
Look at this murderer's row of HC/OC combos he's had:
Bowles/Bates
Gase/Loggains

That's a defensive coach with an anonymous career QB coach (with no real record of success in that role) and then the worst HC in the league with his go to OC, whose previous gig was making Tannehill look awful before a competent OC made him look really good.
 

SoxinSeattle

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2003
2,001
Here
I agree that Darnold is very likely terrible. Trubisky has generally been competent, with signs that he could be more than competent. I just don't see too many better options. For a draft pick, they'll have to trade up (and they're already short their 3rd rounder). They just don't have a viable path for finishing in the top 10, which is where they'll likely need to be. None of the 2nd tier QB prospects will be clearly better options than Trubisky, at least in 2021. As for veterans, who is going to be out there? Dak is likely going to get tagged. If not, that's going to be a $40m/year contract for a guy who I like, but am not convinced is elite. Carr? I think NE's game plan against LV showed what BB thought of him and I'm not sure LV will be moving on from him anyhow. Stafford might be available via trade and he's clearly talented. But again, no guarantee he'll be available or what it would cost in compensation. But Stafford would be intriguing.

Trubisky will almost definitely be available (hard to see how Chicago can tag him when they're up against the cap and have a good chunk tied to Foles that will be hard to move on from). He's still relatively young (will be 27 next season), and has shown signs of promise. Not a bad bridge option while figuring out if there's legitimately something there or treading water until the next opportunity presents itself.
Stafford is the guy you have to get if he becomes available. This is a playoff team with him on the roster and that's before they reload the skill positions. He's a tough talented dude who I think would thrive under BB.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,875
NH
I actually wish they signed Jameis this year. He's been at worst an average QB, even despite the interceptions.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
39,585
It's not the cook, it's the ingredients. Brady's last 8 games last season with minimal skill position help--80.8 QB rating, completing 57% of his passes. They need help, no matter who it is. The team is going to spend in the offseason on skill players--they have to.
It's both the cook AND the ingredients. Brady also didn't have the 2020 OL nor 2020 Damien Harris. And he refused to throw to certain WRs. Some of his poor QBR is on him. You could sign Allen Robinson and a quality TE and if your QB is Cam Newton, your offense isn't going to be very good next year.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,775
02130
The best deal is the draft; that's going to be BB's first choice. If you find someone you like you get a year to watch him and then if he can play by year 2, you get 3 years of under-market QB play (4 if he's a first rounder).

For vet reclamation projects, you obviously have tape and scouting at the NFL level of guys like Jameis, but the benefit is lower because you're not likely to commit to the guy for more than a year or two, so if he works out you have to sign an expensive player, and there's a risk that you "reclaimed" a guy just so he can go and get a big contract somewhere else.

I would be pretty surprised if BB signed any vet for more than something like the Cam deal. Just keep drafting guys you like and hope they work out while developing the rest of the team. If you really think you're a QB away from winning everything, you might be able to get a veteran who reaches the end of their contract with their current team (like Brady) who you can convince to come over and make a run for it. I don't think the Pats are at that point yet.

So this offseason I'd expect them to draft a QB and then bring in a veteran to compete, and you still have Stidham. Then you see how things develop over the year.