2021 Pats: QB Options

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,595
I'd much prefer Trubisky to Mariota.
I think that Belichick is going for Mac Jones. He’s an Alabama guy, is accurate and doesn’t make mistakes. He’s not flashy whatsoever, but neither was Brady.
Plus, going from Alabama is about as NFL as an experience as you can get without actually playing in the NFL.
Playing at Alabama is as far as you can get from playing in the NFL.
At no point are you going to have one of the top 3-5 talents at every position like you do at Alabama. Most QBs can look good if they have top 5 players across their entire offensive line, multiple top 3 WRs, top RBs, and their defense is great. I think you get a much better read on how good a QB is if they play at a middling program.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,830
Dallas
I think that Belichick is going for Mac Jones. He’s an Alabama guy, is accurate and doesn’t make mistakes. He’s not flashy whatsoever, but neither was Brady.
Plus, going from Alabama is about as NFL as an experience as you can get without actually playing in the NFL.
Would you still feel that way, Nipper, if you knew his full name was Michael McCorkle Jones?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
67,819
Oregon
I am pretty gloom and doom on their options. No one imo worth taking at 15.
Those Baltimore and Arizona wins felt like the start of something at the time, but at this moment they're painful
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Those Baltimore and Arizona wins felt like the start of something at the time, but at this moment they're painful
No kidding. Throw in that come from behind Jets win too. To me 4-12 would be looking a lot better than a middling 7-9 team right now. They would be picking either 3rd or 4th depending on a tie breaker with Atlanta and in position to draft the QB of the future. Now they are stuck in no mans land.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,830
Dallas
Belichick digging his heels in when they were 2-5 and getting the season back on track was a pyrrhic victory in a way. Although keeping the culture is important and seeing younger guys finally producing again was a nice change.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
9,304
NH
The more I read and analyze the more I'm being pushed into wanting Watson or Jimmy G and that's it. All the other QB's we're talking about are garbage. We're all hoping that BB and crew can shine a turd when in reality most of these guys had their chance and were just bad. Of course all of them have upside, most of them were high draft picks and looked the part in college, but I'm becoming less and less optimistic about any of them helping this team with little talent at receiver. Granted that should change soon and I'm sure we'd all feel a lot better about throwing out a question mark at QB if say he was throwing to someone like OBJ. But we don't have that...

Just a weird position to be in as a Pats fan.
 
Feb 19, 2015
3,585
Mariota, Trubisky, and Winston.

It's 2AM at the bar, you just did your fifth shot of Jager, and everyone looks good.

Whoever costs the least in draft picks and salary cap, I suppose. Lots of holes to fill, especially quarterback, especially after picking up one of those guys.
2 AM and you're only on your 5th shot? You sir, have a lot more discipline than me. But as much as I might drink, I'm not sure I could drink enough to make any of those 3 look good.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
35,125
Hartford, CT
We're going to end up with Big Ben aren't we?
That would shock me, genuinely. He is immobile and physically broken down, plus I don’t see him playing for cheap like Cam did. His career is just about over, so what is the point of a make good deal with a team not close to genuine contention?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
67,819
Oregon
I'm still on the Fitzmagic bus. It's a short bus, but it still runs.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,924
That would shock me, genuinely. He is immobile and physically broken down, plus I don’t see him playing for cheap like Cam did. His career is just about over, so what is the point of a make good deal with a team not close to genuine contention?
Got the impression that he's only playing because of his salary. Pitt releases him and assume he just retires.
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
13,601
Add me to the folks who want Jimmy G back. I have no substantive analysis to back it up, I just like the guy and have maintained a soft spot for him even after he was traded.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,595
Add me to the folks who want Jimmy G back. I have no substantive analysis to back it up, I just like the guy and have maintained a soft spot for him even after he was traded.
If he gets cut I'd be all for it. At the cost of any asset and 23M in cap space... hard no, he's not that good. There is a reason SF is looking to move on from him.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
1,127
The Mariota talk is depressing because we essentially know he is bad. A 5th honestly feels too much - I'm confident enough he's not a long term answer that I'd probably rather just run Cam back out there. I think the chances Cam could be decent with a full offseason and upgraded WR talent are about equal to those that Mariota is a legitimate reclamation project - not very high, and one doesn't cost picks. He's easy to root for if they're surprisingly good, and easy to tank with if he's bad again. I'm praying neither is even close to in their plans (Jimmy, even for a mid round pick, is in a different stratosphere of option imo), but giving up assets for dudes who are objectively bad would be more deflating than any other option.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
7,468
Westwood MA
If he gets cut I'd be all for it. At the cost of any asset and 23M in cap space... hard no, he's not that good. There is a reason SF is looking to move on from him.
It's funny to see how it appears the 49ers are ready to move on from him when a few years ago when they traded for him, the prevailing attitude was the Patriots traded away their QB of the future and did not get enough for him and how the 49ers underpaid for him.

As another poster pointed out, man were we spoiled here in New England as the QB position was rock solid for about 26 years.

As time goes on, I have a sinking feeling they are either going to end up with an older veteran place holder for a year or so, another reclamation project that does not pan out, drafting someone that people will not be happy with or.............................wait for it...........bringing Cam back for another year.

Needless to say, success in the NFL begins and ends at the QB position, all you need to do is look at the teams that have been a mess for a long time and see who their QB is/was.

The Patriots can load up on quality free agents this off season all they want and draft for needs, but without a top shelf QB, forget it.

When you look at how they dominated the AFC East for 19 years, the one constant was Brady vs an assortment of pedestrian QB talent at best.

Buffalo appears to have their guy, but sorry, I'm not sold on Tua and I don't think deep down the Dolphins are either. The Jets will probably draft someone and cut ties with Darnold............and no, I do not want him here, period, end of story.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
20,247
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
my bottom line is this. If they want to be a playoff team next year they need to trade for someone fast so that we can be players in the FA market. Players don’t want to sign with a black hole at the web position.

but if they want to go the rebuild route, that’s fine,but that means going young and not with broken down cam.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,344
New York City
but if they want to go the rebuild route, that’s fine,but that means going young and not with broken down cam.
But what does “going young” at QB mean in practice? Let’s say the top QBs all get taken early as expected, the Pats can’t or don’t trade up, and they project Mac Jones and the other second-tier QBs as being far from franchise-type players.

In that scenario, it seems entirely reasonable to bring back Cam or some other 1-year vet and spend the draft capital and cap space on addressing the numerous other weaknesses, in particular the front 7 on defense and pass-catchers on offense.

(Which, by the way, is why I’d be pretty surprised if they sign or trade for a non-Watson QB prior to the draft because so much depends on how that shakes out.)
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
67,819
Oregon
We're spinning our wheels in this discussion.

How many rookies, especially in Josh's offense, actually start? Even if they draft a QB in the first round, chances are pretty good they'll begin the season using a bridge quarterback -- and by definition, bridge quarterbacks have flaws.

Instead of getting hung up on those flaws, there should be more focus on which available bridge is likely to manage a McDaniels offense the best, with the potential for improvement in the system -- as opposed to simply hot-taking that they'll be just as bad as they were under a different offense.

I still think a "pro" like Fitzpatrick, or a Dalton or Alex Smith type, is the type you're looking for in this situation, regardless if they draft a quarterback. There isn't a flip-the-switch candidate out there to fix the offense.
 

gryoung

Member
SoSH Member
The Mariota talk is depressing because we essentially know he is bad. A 5th honestly feels too much - I'm confident enough he's not a long term answer that I'd probably rather just run Cam back out there. I think the chances Cam could be decent with a full offseason and upgraded WR talent are about equal to those that Mariota is a legitimate reclamation project - not very high, and one doesn't cost picks. He's easy to root for if they're surprisingly good, and easy to tank with if he's bad again. I'm praying neither is even close to in their plans (Jimmy, even for a mid round pick, is in a different stratosphere of option imo), but giving up assets for dudes who are objectively bad would be more deflating than any other option.
Under no circumstances do I want to sit through another season of Cam Newton.

None.
Nada.
Zero.

I’d rather have them go to the single wing.
 

Bowser

lurker
Sep 27, 2019
64
We're spinning our wheels in this discussion.
I'm with you. My sole interest is in seeing the Pats land their QB of the future, period. Could be (a) a rookie with upside, (b) a veteran who falls into the above average or better category, or (c) a relatively low cost reclamation project who, with some luck, might give us above average production.

If it's (a) -- say, if BB loves Lance -- great, bet the farm and go up and get him, and let's see if we can get this party train back on the tracks. And sure, bring in whichever bridge QB makes sense. In this scenario I'd be thrilled to debate the relative merits of Fitzpatrick vs. Dalton or whoever.

But if I can't have (a), (b) or (c), then Mariota, Fitzpatrick, Bridgewater, Dalton, Minshew -- who cares? Sorry, but I just can't muster the energy to figure out which of these suckasses might be able to get us to 9-7. Sign me up for another damn season of Cam and his low salary, one hoppers, and stupid hats.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,856
I'm with you. My sole interest is in seeing the Pats land their QB of the future, period. Could be (a) a rookie with upside, (b) a veteran who falls into the above average or better category, or (c) a relatively low cost reclamation project who, with some luck, might give us above average production.

If it's (a) -- say, if BB loves Lance -- great, bet the farm and go up and get him, and let's see if we can get this party train back on the tracks. And sure, bring in whichever bridge QB makes sense. In this scenario I'd be thrilled to debate the relative merits of Fitzpatrick vs. Dalton or whoever.

But if I can't have (a), (b) or (c), then Mariota, Fitzpatrick, Bridgewater, Dalton, Minshew -- who cares? Sorry, but I just can't muster the energy to figure out which of these suckasses might be able to get us to 9-7. Sign me up for another damn season of Cam and his low salary, one hoppers, and stupid hats.
Is Tyrod Taylor still an option? I like him better than the other guys whose names keep getting kicked around here. He strikes me as a c who might get to b with some luck.

Please - PLEASE - no mo Cam! Great guy, lousy quarterback.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,086
my bottom line is this. If they want to be a playoff team next year they need to trade for someone fast so that we can be players in the FA market. Players don’t want to sign with a black hole at the web position.
Who? We don't have the ammo for a Watson.

One of the Pats writers (Lazar maybe?) said that they guy out there that he has heard players say they want to play with is Cam, and he specifically mentioned Odell. No one will really want to play with Mariota, Fitz, JG, etc. They may or may not be solid options, but they aren't bringing talent.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,595
We're spinning our wheels in this discussion.

How many rookies, especially in Josh's offense, actually start? Even if they draft a QB in the first round, chances are pretty good they'll begin the season using a bridge quarterback -- and by definition, bridge quarterbacks have flaws.

Instead of getting hung up on those flaws, there should be more focus on which available bridge is likely to manage a McDaniels offense the best, with the potential for improvement in the system -- as opposed to simply hot-taking that they'll be just as bad as they were under a different offense.

I still think a "pro" like Fitzpatrick, or a Dalton or Alex Smith type, is the type you're looking for in this situation, regardless if they draft a quarterback. There isn't a flip-the-switch candidate out there to fix the offense.
I'm not so sure about that. Brissett was pressed into action as a rookie. If we really want someone who knows the offense.... it's Cam. He's been in it for a year, and he'd be well ahead of vets who played in different systems. THat's probably the appeal of Jimmy G too. Overall though, I don't think there is any reason to think Josh's offense is any harder for a QB to pick up than any other. And I don't think McDaniels is going to transform any of these guys. If anything you should be tailoring the offense to the skills of your players not trying to find the perfect player to run Tom Brady's offense.

my bottom line is this. If they want to be a playoff team next year they need to trade for someone fast so that we can be players in the FA market. Players don’t want to sign with a black hole at the web position.

but if they want to go the rebuild route, that’s fine,but that means going young and not with broken down cam.
See the thing is.... I bet more guys around the league want to play with Cam Newton than any of the retreads we've seen mentioned. Both the Patriots roster and around the league, players have a really high opinion of Cam, he's well liked, players respect him for both his past play, and how he's handled being one of the earlier high profile Black QBs, who took a ton of pretty racist criticism over the years and shrugged it off.

If you aren't getting DeShaun no QB mentioned is moving the FA needle more than Cam. Guys aren't lining up to play with Jimmy G, or Mariota, or Fitz or any of these other guys.

Edit- THough honestly I think it doesn't matter much. Outside the ring chasers (who aren't signing here anyway) or maybe Allen Robinson (who may be done with terrible QBs), guys are going to sign for the money and the role, and the Patriots can offer that having a lot of cap space, and a lot of opportunity.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,830
Dallas
What a fun Saturday again. More tape with friends. Again if you want an invite just PM. We have the good stuff (All-22).

Today we looked at Mac Jones vs Georgia. I think it is the best example of how Mac Jones is fools gold. You look at his stat line and you would think he had a great day but when you look at the throw by throw you’re going to see questionable decision making, lack of an arm to make clean outside throws, and some poor ball placement. Not that Mac Jones doesn’t have his moments. He’s not an undraftable guy but I think this game shows you how his receivers and scheme really helped him.

I don’t have the ability to make snippets but next Saturday or Sunday if you even just one of you wants to look at this game I would be happy to do a zoom. I don’t think there is a better way to help settle debates or discussions than watching games.

I’ll propose next Saturday at 3pm eastern.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
67,819
Oregon
I'm not so sure about that. Brissett was pressed into action as a rookie. If we really want someone who knows the offense.... it's Cam. He's been in it for a year, and he'd be well ahead of vets who played in different systems. THat's probably the appeal of Jimmy G too. Overall though, I don't think there is any reason to think Josh's offense is any harder for a QB to pick up than any other. And I don't think McDaniels is going to transform any of these guys. If anything you should be tailoring the offense to the skills of your players not trying to find the perfect player to run Tom Brady's offense.
Yeah, none of that is what I'm talking about.

Brissett was "pressed into action" by circumstance; he wasn't given the starting job. Even if they draft a rookiein the first round, he's not starting in Game 1 unless he's also pressed into action or his name is Trevor Lawrence. The Patriots don't play rookies right away, especially on offense., unless there are extenuating circumstances. It's not a matter of learning the offense alone.
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
2,097
Arkansas
i think bill has 4 years maybe 5 left and u have 2 choices

A draft like u did from 10-13 and sign a FA here and there
B trade for jimmy g and once bill goes jimmy goes
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,595
Yeah, none of that is what I'm talking about.

Brissett was "pressed into action" by circumstance; he wasn't given the starting job. Even if they draft a rookiein the first round, he's not starting in Game 1 unless he's also pressed into action or his name is Trevor Lawrence. The Patriots don't play rookies right away, especially on offense., unless there are extenuating circumstances. It's not a matter of learning the offense alone.
I guess, but we really don't know, since there has never been a rookie QB on this team who wasn't behind a Pro-Bowl starter. QBs are a different beast, I don't think you can take anything away from what they've done in the past at other positions....

Though even then it's not really true that Rookies don't start on offense:
2020- 6th rounder Onwenu started all 16
2019- Harry started 7 of the 9 games he was healthy for, Johnson started 3 of 4 before going on IR
2018- Michel was the starter in 8 of 13 beginning in week 2,
2016- Thuney started every game, Mitchell started week 1, and 6 of 14 overall
2015- Jackson started 9 of 13, Andrews 11 of 14, Mason 10 of 14
2014- Stork started 11 of 14
2013- Dobson 9 of 12, Thompkins started 8 0f 12 (including first 7 in a row) and Boyce started the ones Thompkins didn't, horonable mention to ST Allen played all 16.
2012- N/A
2011- SOlder 13 of 16.

Overall looking back I saw 2 things...
1. We don't draft as many offensive players as defensive
2. Our offensive rookies actually start more than don't. Most that didn't start a significant portion were in one of 3 categories: Very late picks, picked for specialty roles (see White/Vereen/Bolden) or behind a top player (Brissett, Jimmy G, etc.).
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,149
Mansfield MA
I guess, but we really don't know, since there has never been a rookie QB on this team who wasn't behind a Pro-Bowl starter. QBs are a different beast, I don't think you can take anything away from what they've done in the past at other positions....

Though even then it's not really true that Rookies don't start on offense:
2020- 6th rounder Onwenu started all 16
2019- Harry started 7 of the 9 games he was healthy for, Johnson started 3 of 4 before going on IR
2018- Michel was the starter in 8 of 13 beginning in week 2,
2016- Thuney started every game, Mitchell started week 1, and 6 of 14 overall
2015- Jackson started 9 of 13, Andrews 11 of 14, Mason 10 of 14
2014- Stork started 11 of 14
2013- Dobson 9 of 12, Thompkins started 8 0f 12 (including first 7 in a row) and Boyce started the ones Thompkins didn't, horonable mention to ST Allen played all 16.
2012- N/A
2011- SOlder 13 of 16.

Overall looking back I saw 2 things...
1. We don't draft as many offensive players as defensive
2. Our offensive rookies actually start more than don't. Most that didn't start a significant portion were in one of 3 categories: Very late picks, picked for specialty roles (see White/Vereen/Bolden) or behind a top player (Brissett, Jimmy G, etc.).
I think it depends on the position. OL they've had plenty of rookie starters (although worth noting that injuries / opt outs played a role in Solder, Onwenu, Andrews, Mason etc. starting). Early-down RB, yes (Michel, Ridley, Maroney). WR is a mixed bag, with again injuries playing a role in many of these rookies being active (especially in 2013). But the more complicated position, the less we tend to see rookies make an impact. The pass-catching backs don't. Lightning struck twice with Gronk / Hernandez in 2010 but otherwise the rookie TEs haven't done much. And certainly quarterback is the most involved position of all. I guess it is worth noting that Belichick did start rookie QB Eric Zeier for 4 games back in 1995; he was basically the only QB BB drafted in Cleveland.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,595
I think it depends on the position. OL they've had plenty of rookie starters (although worth noting that injuries / opt outs played a role in Solder, Onwenu, Andrews, Mason etc. starting). Early-down RB, yes (Michel, Ridley, Maroney). WR is a mixed bag, with again injuries playing a role in many of these rookies being active (especially in 2013). But the more complicated position, the less we tend to see rookies make an impact. The pass-catching backs don't. Lightning struck twice with Gronk / Hernandez in 2010 but otherwise the rookie TEs haven't done much. And certainly quarterback is the most involved position of all. I guess it is worth noting that Belichick did start rookie QB Eric Zeier for 4 games back in 1995; he was basically the only QB BB drafted in Cleveland.
I mean.... what players are we talking about? Asiasi and Keene? Because what are the guys drafted decently high on offense who didn't start a good amount as rookies? pass catching backs don't start, that isn't their role. Not sure where you see WRs as a mixed bag, basically every WR drafted highly started

To me that breakdown basically says.... almost all our highly drafted offensive players were given a shot right away if healthy.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,149
Mansfield MA
I mean.... what players are we talking about? Asiasi and Keene?
Sure. Ben Watson only played one game, he was hurt though. Graham and David Thomas both had a decent amount of games started but really didn't factor into the passing game at all.

Not sure where you see WRs as a mixed bag, basically every WR drafted highly started.
Chad Jackson didn't, Taylor Price, didn't, Brandon Tate didn't. Bethel Johnson is credited with 5 starts but had a total of 16 catches in 15 games (I'd rather use snap counts for this than starts, but we only have that data going back to 2012). I guess this where it gets tricky, because did those guys not start because they were rookies, or just because they sucked? Obviously none of them went on to do anything.

You have a point that the rookies do often end up playing quite a bit, but I think @E5 Yaz also has a point that few of these guys were plan As / Week 1 starters. I think what we're seeing is that if you're drafted high, you wind up on the 53-man roster, and if you're on the 53-man roster, you're probably going to have to play at some point. Every once in a while you get a Damien Harris who is good but just stuck at a position where there aren't a lot of injuries in a given year, but most of the time someone gets dinged up and you gotta throw the rookie in.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
67,819
Oregon
@E5 Yaz also has a point that few of these guys were plan As / Week 1 starters. I think what we're seeing is that if you're drafted high, you wind up on the 53-man roster, and if you're on the 53-man roster, you're probably going to have to play at some point. Every once in a while you get a Damien Harris who is good but just stuck at a position where there aren't a lot of injuries in a given year, but most of the time someone gets dinged up and you gotta throw the rookie in.
Thank you for saying it goober the I did
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
If he gets cut I'd be all for it. At the cost of any asset and 23M in cap space... hard no, he's not that good. There is a reason SF is looking to move on from him.
The Eagles just somehow got positive value for the corpse of Carson Wentz on a terrible contract. You’re underestimating the cost of getting a material upgrade at the QB position.

Now, it’s totally legit to say that you’d rather spend whatever it takes to get Kirk Cousins and keep the team’s full complement of draft picks, that’s fair. But if you think Jinmy G is a better player than Cousins (and I do), then I think it’s crazy not to throw in a Day 3 pick if that’s gets you the upgrade. That’s a whole different analysis than deciding whether to trade up and grab one of the four young guns in the draft.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,924
Now, it’s totally legit to say that you’d rather spend whatever it takes to get Kirk Cousins and keep the team’s full complement of draft picks
IMO Cousins would cost more than Jimmy. You'd have to give the Vikings something good.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,924
You think the Vikings will tag him? I think he’s going to be an UFA.
Rotoworld says they signed him to an 3 year deal which I think includes last year so he has 2 years left. Date was 3/16/20 so I'm not surprised you were a little distracted and didn't see the news.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Rotoworld says they signed him to an 3 year deal which I think includes last year so he has 2 years left. Date was 3/16/20 so I'm not surprised you were a little distracted and didn't see the news.
Lol, I totally missed that. Thanks.

Cousins’ $35M salary for 2022 becomes vested next month, but if the Vikings don’t want to take that on, they’ll find someone willing to give up something of value for the privilege; they won’t just cut him.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
We've heard about Watson wanting out, and the speculation being 3 firsts plus, plus.
"Get Up" on ESPN speculated that the Cowboys should trade Prescott for 3 firsts.
I just read a report on NESN.com saying that if the Seahawks were to trade a disgruntled Wilson, they should expect 3 firsts. (His contract seems completely immovable from a Seattle POV from what I can tell, but I'm including him as a data point for trade costs)

So clearly there is a consensus that suggests that a top-five vet QB is worth three first-round picks.

I feel like the Pats would happily give three firsts for any of those guys.