Pats Re-sign Cam Newton to a 1-Year Deal

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,828
Feels like a 'meh' move to me, even after factoring in that there weren't any other great options. Best-case scenario to me would be for the Pats to draft the QB of the future who can learn the ropes while Cam leads a ground game that helps the team win a few more games than they should, gives Buffalo trouble for the division title and grabs at least a wild-card berth.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
25,407
So, if really a one-year $8 mil deal with some upside that's not bad. He's a serviceable NFL Qb, they have a lot of info on him as a teammate and in this system, and there was some good tape pre-covid (pretty much none after, unfortunately). Don't love it, but recognize they have a lot of holes to fill.
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
5,368
Overland Park, KS
I am torn. I really like him as a person after what he did as a man last year. He took a lot of grief and was a stand-up guy. He is a great running QB who also missed wide-open receivers.

I would like to see him with a training camp, some better WRs, and a good TE. I think guys are going to want to play with him.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
15,228
I don't have a problem theoretically bringing him back, but I'd be pretty unhappy if he started a majority of the games next season. I remember watching games in the back-half of last season and with a few notable exceptions, such as the Baltimore game, the offense was painful to watch. Cam could not throw the ball downfield and every drive felt like an immense struggle. His poor performance really kept us out of the playoffs; I mean if Fitzpatrick was our QB last year the Patriots probably win 10-11 games. He's not a good QB and the Patriots will have a pretty low ceiling if he starts every game.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
5,371
Do you think it's weird that he completed a higher percentage of passes than Big Ben? Or Burrow? Or Ryan?
I don't think that's all that weird. Those other QBs have weapons they can push the ball down the field to versus a safer dink and dunk offense. Also, Big Ben was terrible in the second half of the season and it's not surprising that Burrow- who only played 10 games- wouldn't post a great completion % as a rookie. Cam also had a better % than Brady. Shouldn't the judgment be the quality of the completions not whether or not Cam was a percentage point or two better than some other names? The only thing Cam's completion percentage speaks to me is that you can complete 65% of your passes and still be pretty goddamn terrible or the Superbowl-winning GOAT.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
11,191
I'm okay with the signing, because I don't think it really impacts their flexibility much at all. But if this actually turns out to be their plan for the QB position in 2021, I'm super disappointed.

That being said, if they draft a QB, and the only other QB on the roster is Cam Newton, that draftee is going to end up starting at some point whether that's the plan or not.
I think that this is exactly how I feel (but I'm maybe not so sure about the draftee seeing meaningful playing time, especially if Cam has them flirting with the playoffs).
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,242
But not all backups are created equal. Let's say Cam gets used in goal-line and change-up option packages similar to say Taysom Hill but he's not the starter. That provides way more value than the Alex Smiths of the world and his cap number would be in line with that kind of role.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,611
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
But not all backups are created equal. Let's say Cam gets used in goal-line and change-up option packages similar to say Taysom Hill but he's not the starter. That provides way more value than the Alex Smiths of the world and his cap number would be in line with that kind of role.
I thought he wasn't anything special running the ball last year, he had zero explosiveness, and any passable RB can get you one yard TDs. If that's why he's being brought back it's even more indefensible.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
6,693
Somerville, MA
I’m on Team ”Cam will be better with better weapons and a full preseason to get a deeper understanding of the offense”. Basically I think that still probably makes him an average QB at best, but at 30% of the cost of a FA average QB unless he and the team both do really well. I think the only QBs worth paying top dollar for are the top QBs, otherwise you’re paying like 85% of that price for nowhere near the performance, so you either need to have a top guy at top dollar or draft an average guy on a cheap contract to be able to make things work from a team-building perspective. This deal keeps long-term possibilities open, which I think is better than paying the going rate of $20-25M for an average QB.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,338
First, the fact that Belichick loves it and Zolak hates it means it will probably work out quite well for the team.

The Pats did not have enough assets to trade for a top tier QB, and the draft assets needed to get a mid-tier QB (Garropolo) or worse (Mariotta) really should be used to boost up other spots on the roster. It's also been noted many times that the free agent QB class is looking very weak.

So, this is a low risk move, as it still allows the Pats to find their QB of the future in the draft (don't understand the argument that it does not). And if someone becomes unexpectedly available in the next few months, they can still make a move. As for Stidham, he's probably done here, but there's no upside of cutting him prior to training camp, so expect him to compete for a backup position.

It seems like the downside here is another 7-9 or 8-8 season. But it's not in Belichick's genes to tank either, and tanking does not really work in the NFL anyway.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
5,313
If Cam goes all the way to the outside v Seattle, plays against Denver, and doesn't fumble against Buffalo, this was a 10-win team. I don't want to be overly optimistic, but the idea that this team cannot win with Cam as QB isn't borne out by the results. Scott Zolak's kid might want to watch some film of his old man before he starts casting any stones in Cam's direction.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,912
Santa Monica, CA
Belichick is all about risk management. He wants the FLOOR of QB play to be a Cam Newton fully up to speed on the offense with a full offseason to prepare. By all appearances, based on the asking price of QBs to be potentially traded i.e. Watson, along with the contract demands of mediocre FA QBs clashing with the stagnant salary cap, he probably thinks the QB market is going to develop very late this spring/summer. Then if you strike out on all of those you are deciding to go with an untested Stidham and a Hoyer level-or-worse backup as a parachute sometime in August. Not what they are looking for.
That feels right.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,731
New York City
I don't have a problem theoretically bringing him back, but I'd be pretty unhappy if he started a majority of the games next season. I remember watching games in the back-half of last season and with a few notable exceptions, such as the Baltimore game, the offense was painful to watch. Cam could not throw the ball downfield and every drive felt like an immense struggle. His poor performance really kept us out of the playoffs; I mean if Fitzpatrick was our QB last year the Patriots probably win 10-11 games. He's not a good QB and the Patriots will have a pretty low ceiling if he starts every game.
Not sure I agree. Would Fitzpatrick have worked in the ground-and-pound scheme the Pats deployed? To be sure, part of the reason for that scheme was Cam himself, but part of it was their terrible pass-catchers. And I'm not sure Fitzpatrick is the level of talent that can elevate the talent around him - strikes me as a guy that is good when the rest of the team is good and is meh when the rest of the team is meh. He's been on plenty of teams that went 5-11, 6-10, 7-9, etc.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,611
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Belichick is all about risk management. He wants the FLOOR of QB play to be a Cam Newton fully up to speed on the offense with a full offseason to prepare. By all appearances, based on the asking price of QBs to be potentially traded i.e. Watson, along with the contract demands of mediocre FA QBs clashing with the stagnant salary cap, he probably thinks the QB market is going to develop very late this spring/summer. Then if you strike out on all of those you are deciding to go with an untested Stidham and a Hoyer level-or-worse backup as a parachute sometime in August. Not what they are looking for.
The floor with Cam is a bottom 3 starter in football. We saw it last year. And the fact that he was giving excuses about having to learn a "20 year system" and talking about how COVID totally derailed his season you guys doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,912
Santa Monica, CA
If Cam goes all the way to the outside v Seattle, plays against Denver, and doesn't fumble against Buffalo, this was a 10-win team. I don't want to be overly optimistic, but the idea that this team cannot win with Cam as QB isn't borne out by the results. Scott Zolak's kid might want to watch some film of his old man before he starts casting any stones in Cam's direction.
This is a weird road to go down. Sure, if all Cam's failures were successes, he would have had a great year.

Also, if God hadn't directed the wrath of a hurricane at the Baltimore offense in the fourth quarter, that was a loss. If the Jets were coached by a functional human being, they wouldn't have thrown the ball with a 10 point lead in the fourth quarter and turned it over, and that was a loss, too. Etc.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
35,897
Hartford, CT
Terrible move, Cam sucks and I'd rather see a different kind of suck. If he's being paid to be a backup, I'd rather have Alex Smith.
Objecting to Cam returning on aesthetic grounds is perfectly fine. After all, we ultimately watch for entertainment and if his style of play, which is volatile and not high octane in the passing game, is unbearable for a person to watch then I get hating this. I don’t love watching him play, either...but I also don’t love watching the other available QB or - in the case of Trubisky and Mariota - needing to invest more money or draft capital in them.

So, in terms of whether this puts the team in a better or worse position relative to other available options, which is and should be Bill’s objective, I think it is hyperbolic to say this is a ‘terrible’ move. That is, unless acquiring any of the actually available QBs would qualify as a ‘terrible’ move, in which case we’d be really saying that they have a bad QB situation.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,364
I don't have a problem theoretically bringing him back, but I'd be pretty unhappy if he started a majority of the games next season. I remember watching games in the back-half of last season and with a few notable exceptions, such as the Baltimore game, the offense was painful to watch. Cam could not throw the ball downfield and every drive felt like an immense struggle. His poor performance really kept us out of the playoffs; I mean if Fitzpatrick was our QB last year the Patriots probably win 10-11 games. He's not a good QB and the Patriots will have a pretty low ceiling if he starts every game.
I think we would have won less games with Fitzy. He's a slinger who would have turned it over a ton given our lack of weapons. Fitz is the guy you get when your defense stinks and you want to throw it 50 times a game to your speedy WRs. We don't have speedy WRs and we wanted to control the ball.
 

Rook05

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
2,817
Boulder, CO
We can’t truly evaluate this decision until after FA and the draft, so I’ll withhold any pointed opinions. But we all saw what Cam is capable of last season and I don’t think it’s unfair to say that his ceiling is closer to a below league average QB. Of course, this doesn’t take into account BB’s approach to team building, and they clearly have some pieces at OL and RB.

This is life after a franchise QB. We’d all like to see the next guy now. I think you just need to keep throwing darts at the problem until you hit. Cam was a good bet last year and preserves some of this flexibility this year, but the odds he’s the man beyond 2021 are extremely low.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
15,228
Not sure I agree. Would Fitzpatrick have worked in the ground-and-pound scheme the Pats deployed? To be sure, part of the reason for that scheme was Cam himself, but part of it was their terrible pass-catchers. And I'm not sure Fitzpatrick is the level of talent that can elevate the talent around him - strikes me as a guy that is good when the rest of the team is good and is meh when the rest of the team is meh. He's been on plenty of teams that went 5-11, 6-10, 7-9, etc.
Fitzpatrick was pretty good last season in Miami (much better than Cam) and did it with WRs who were probably as bad as New England's and RBs who were definitely worse.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,793
Oregon
BB has to think of the entire team. The Patriots know that they basically need a bridge quarterback, and to create a revolving door of veterans would basically make the entire team start over at square one for a second straight year.

As others have said, this signals to me that they're going to be in play to moving up to grab one of these quarterbacks in the draft. And, in the meantime, they keep a guy who was a positive influence in the locker room and have a sense of continuity ... even if the mechanical issues he had last season can't be mitigated.

Wasn't my first choice, but I get the logic.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,611
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Objecting to Cam returning on aesthetic grounds is perfectly fine. After all, we ultimately watch for entertainment and if his style of play, which is volatile and not high octane in the passing game, is unbearable for a person to watch then I get hating this. I don’t love watching him play, either...but I also don’t love watching the other available QB or - in the case of Trubisky and Mariota - needing to invest more money or draft capital in them.

So, in terms of whether this puts the team in a better or worse position relative to other available options, which is and should be Bill’s objective, I think it is hyperbolic to say this is a ‘terrible’ move. That is, unless acquiring any of the actually available QBs would qualify as a ‘terrible’ move, in which case we’d be really saying that they have a bad QB situation.
Cam can't throw the ball and he's either making too much money for a backup or going to take a lot of snaps after being one of the worst QBs on football last year. He's also an alpha dog in the locker room and that can be an issue if they draft a young QB. I see literally no upside to this move other than "he knows the offense", but then again so does Brian Hoyer. I'd rather go after a guy like Mariota for that money, someone that at they very least is still in his physical prime and can possibly be "fixed".
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,338
Fitzpatrick was pretty good last season in Miami (much better than Cam) and did it with WRs who were probably as bad as New England's and RBs who were definitely worse.
Fitzpatrick may not be available either. Or he would require more in guaranteed money, a consideration for another 1-year stopgap for a team that has multiple holes on its roster to fill.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,731
New York City
The floor with Cam is a bottom 3 starter in football. We saw it last year. And the fact that he was giving excuses about having to learn a "20 year system" and talking about how COVID totally derailed his season you guys doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
If Belichick agreed with you and thought Cam was giving unjustified "excuses," do you really think he would have re-signed him?

Put another way, is there any real reason to think that, even assuming the Pats went into this season again with just Cam and Stidham (and I have to assume they draft a QB somewhere in the draft this year), the team would be worse than last year? With the Trent Brown signing (and Thuney presumably leaving) I think it's probable that the line is about the same as last year. Harris should be better just due to experience, and maybe even Sony too. And they are likely to add at least a piece or two at TE/WR. Defense certainly has some holes but at least they are getting back the opt-out guys. And their schedule looks to be easier than last year (other than their divisional opponents they don't really play anyone who is a legit AFC championship contender).

Obviously going into the year with the most likely scenario being another circa-500 season isn't ideal, but if the choice are either (a) another bridge year until they find the quarterback of the future while keeping their proverbial powder dry for future signings/drafts/trades, or (b) spending significant assets on a different QB that might make them a few games better but is unlikely to put them over the top, I'd take (a) every time.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,338
Cam can't throw the ball and he's either making too much money for a backup or going to take a lot of snaps after being one of the worst QBs on football last year. He's also an alpha dog in the locker room and that can be an issue if they draft a young QB. I see literally no upside to this move other than "he knows the offense", but then again so does Brian Hoyer. I'd rather go after a guy like Mariota for that money, someone that at they very least is still in his physical prime and can possibly be "fixed".
This would be an issue if the Pats were preparing to draft Trevor Lawrence. But they're not even likely to get Trey Lance given where they are. And it's likely that any QB drafted later is going to be holding a clipboard for a good part of the season anyway.

If the rookie ends up being a stud, recall that Belichick has experience in moving on from veteran QB's and handling the locker room. It's the last thing we should be worried about with Bill.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
15,228
I think people are really underestimating how bad Cam was last year, especially down the stretch. Take away the garbage time Week 16 game against the Jets; in the critical Week 12 to Week 16 stretch, over five games he threw for 515 yards (103 yards per game) with 1 TD. In today's NFL that is like, unimaginably bad. Do you know how bad you have to be to do that? He was getting benched on a semi-regular basis and yet he kept starting the next game.

He did run for 172 yards (34 per game) which is good but not exactly Lamar Jackson territory. The Patriots ranked 27th in offense last year; so even an offense designed around Cam's running totally sucked last year. It was awful, putrid football and it wasn't just because we were used to Brady. Any NFL fan would be embarrassed to see their team play like that.

I'm not that mad about Cam getting a one year deal at that kind of money; but I will be disappointed if he is the starter the entire way next year. I actually think this team is pretty good; our offensive line should be very good, we should be able to run the ball with a variety of solid backs, and the defense has great potential with some key guys coming back and further development from the Winovich/Duggar/Uche group. If we are going to average 103 passing yards per game though, we aren't going anywhere.
 

brandonchristensen

mad photochops
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
29,027
14M!
Awesome job. And we thought stars don’t come to the Patriots for lesser money.

I think we are just angling for the #1 pick in the 2022 draft. Smart.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
38,676
BB has to think of the entire team. The Patriots know that they basically need a bridge quarterback, and to create a revolving door of veterans would basically make the entire team start over at square one for a second straight year.

As others have said, this signals to me that they're going to be in play to moving up to grab one of these quarterbacks in the draft. And, in the meantime, they keep a guy who was a positive influence in the locker room and have a sense of continuity ... even if the mechanical issues he had last season can't be mitigated.

Wasn't my first choice, but I get the logic.
But why commit to Cam before seeing if Nate Sudfeld becomes available?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,265
Mansfield MA
I don't have a problem theoretically bringing him back, but I'd be pretty unhappy if he started a majority of the games next season. I remember watching games in the back-half of last season and with a few notable exceptions, such as the Baltimore game, the offense was painful to watch. Cam could not throw the ball downfield and every drive felt like an immense struggle. His poor performance really kept us out of the playoffs; I mean if Fitzpatrick was our QB last year the Patriots probably win 10-11 games. He's not a good QB and the Patriots will have a pretty low ceiling if he starts every game.
I think you're kidding yourself that Fitzpatrick would be that kind of upgrade.

Pats in 2019 with Brady: 1.97 points per drive
Pats in 2020 with Cam: 1.92 points per drive
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
15,228
I think you're kidding yourself that Fitzpatrick would be that kind of upgrade.

Pats in 2019 with Brady: 1.97 points per drive
Pats in 2020 with Cam: 1.92 points per drive
Did you see those numbers I posted for him down the stretch? Do you remember watching those games? Cam was fucking terrible. You can debate whether or not Fitzpatrick would be an upgrade or not but if you think I was being hyperbolic it was for an obvious reason; Cam was fucking terrible last year.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
16,822
Unreal America
Do you think it's weird that he completed a higher percentage of passes than Big Ben? Or Burrow? Or Ryan?
I'm not upset with the re-signing, but I'm not sure how useful completion percent is anymore as a stat to differentiate performance. Cam was within half a point of the guys you mentioned.

This past season 32 of the 35 QBs who qualified had a comp rate greater than 60%. 20 years ago just 13 of 34 had a comp rate of 60%+. The game is so different now, a QB basically has to be historically awful to not at least be in the low/mid 60s.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,265
Mansfield MA
Did you see those numbers I posted for him down the stretch? Do you remember watching those games? Cam was fucking terrible. You can debate whether or not Fitzpatrick would be an upgrade or not but if you think I was being hyperbolic it was for an obvious reason; Cam was fucking terrible last year.
I do remember watching those games, but I also remember how terrible and ineffective the passing offense was with Brady down the stretch in 2019. There's only so much a QB can do when his receivers are horrible.
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
974
Love this move for the simple fact that it gives BB so much more leverage trading or moving up in the draft. I think he's basically just saying "I'm not overpaying because you think I'm desperate" to the other GMs. We have plan "C" where plan A is to acquire one of the better free agents/tradeable assets and plan "B" is to work with the draft.

edit: added Tradeable Assets
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,015
I think people are really underestimating how bad Cam was last year, especially down the stretch. Take away the garbage time Week 16 game against the Jets; in the critical Week 12 to Week 16 stretch, over five games he threw for 515 yards (103 yards per game) with 1 TD. In today's NFL that is like, unimaginably bad. Do you know how bad you have to be to do that? He was getting benched on a semi-regular basis and yet he kept starting the next game.

He did run for 172 yards (34 per game) which is good but not exactly Lamar Jackson territory. The Patriots ranked 27th in offense last year; so even an offense designed around Cam's running totally sucked last year. It was awful, putrid football and it wasn't just because we were used to Brady. Any NFL fan would be embarrassed to see their team play like that.

I'm not that mad about Cam getting a one year deal at that kind of money; but I will be disappointed if he is the starter the entire way next year. I actually think this team is pretty good; our offensive line should be very good, we should be able to run the ball with a variety of solid backs, and the defense has great potential with some key guys coming back and further development from the Winovich/Duggar/Uche group. If we are going to average 103 passing yards per game though, we aren't going anywhere.
This is spot on...the only way this works is if Cam is in a Taysom Hill type role...anything else is a disaster for the team / fanbase and will not end well for anyone...Cam will be given ZERO wiggle room by the fans and they will turn hard quickly...this could go south before the end of the first half, week one at Gillette.

Also, to blame it on weapons which SN does is not correct IMO, as the OL and running game were far superior for Cam (Brady basically played the year without a stating LT or C). Cam was historically bad and it was not due to N'Keal.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
1,247
I'm disappointed that it looks like we can finally close the door on Jimmy coming back for a 3rd or 4th. Beyond that, I don't see much to be upset about here. It's not huge $ for a guy who clearly has the locker room and to some degree knows the offense. If plan A is find the long term QB of the future in this draft, I don't see Cam as worse than any other realistic option. Ryan Fitzpatrick might be a more fun to watch guy who will give you the same thing - solid leadership and a record anywhere from 5 wins to 10 if he starts 16 games. But Alex Smith or giving up draft capital for Mariota or Minshew? Much worse outcome.

If they don't draft someone and/or JG or Matt Ryan winds up in a new uniform for a cheap pick haul, I'll be pissed. But I don't see any of those three things as realistic so I'm 100% fine with this.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,611
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Love this move for the simple fact that it gives BB so much more leverage trading or moving up in the draft. I think he's basically just saying "I'm not overpaying because you think I'm desperate" to the other GMs. We have plan "C" where plan A is to acquire one of the better free agents/tradeable assets and plan "B" is to work with the draft.

edit: added Tradeable Assets
All we've heard since last season ended is that Cam didn't want to be a backup. Now he's signed early, before free agency starts, and we're just taking it for granted that Bill has other plans at the position and there's a chance he won't start? I really don't think that's the case. Why not take a peek at the market before committing to a return with the Pats if they didn't at the very least promise him a good shot at starting?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,364
This is spot on...the only way this works is if Cam is in a Taysom Hill type role...anything else is a disaster for the team / fanbase and will not end well for anyone...Cam will be given ZERO wiggle room by the fans and they will turn hard quickly...this could go south before the end of the first half, week one at Gillette.

Also, to blame it on weapons which SN does is not correct IMO, as the OL and running game were far superior for Cam (Brady basically played the year without a stating LT or C). Cam was historically bad and it was not due to N'Keal.
Meh..the line might have been marginally better, but a big part of the running game being much better was Cam, it changes how your run game is defended when you have a high volume running QB.

On the flip side.. there is a good argument that Brady had significantly better pass-catchers (Edelman, Dorsett, Gordon, etc.)
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,265
Mansfield MA
Also, to blame it on weapons which SN does is not correct IMO, as the OL and running game were far superior for Cam (Brady basically played the year without a stating LT or C). Cam was historically bad and it was not due to N'Keal.
1) Cam was part of the reason the running game was far superior
2) Isaiah Wynn was back for the worst stretch of 2019, and he missed a bunch of time last year too (6 games vs 8 the year before)
3) N'Keal was not the only problem in the passing game (though he is awful). Edelman missed 10 games, and the TE were somehow even worse than they were in 2019
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
7,020
Dallas
I actually like this move quite a bit. Cam knows the offense and will improve in year 2. The missed time with COVID was rough.

If they draft Lance or Fields chances are that person will need to wait a year to start. IMHO they freaking should wait a year to start. And Cam with this OL and RBs + a revamped defense and skilled position corps should get to 9-7+. Look, if BB took last years dumpster fire of a roster to 7-9 then I expect him to be able to take a roster with more talent than Meyers, Harry, and Byrd at WR and Izzo, Asiasi, and Keene at TE to greater heights.

It's a cheaper bridge QB contract than anything else you could find and at least Cam can run the ball!

I want to see Bill draft a guy and draft a guy early at QB. But Cam as a mentor and guy to start next year is great to me. I'd rather have Cam at 11-14M vs Jimmy G at 25+. YMMV. Let's see what the draft brings.

One last note - I am a bleeding heart and I love Cam Newton the person. I wish him the best of success here in year 2!
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,731
New York City
I do remember watching those games, but I also remember how terrible and ineffective the passing offense was with Brady down the stretch in 2019. There's only so much a QB can do when his receivers are horrible.
Yeah - Newton's QBR last year was 47. Clearly very bad. But Brady's was only slightly better in 2019 - 55.7. If even Brady - the best quarterback ever - was only able to be mediocre/slightly below-average with the offensive pieces they had, it's kind of unfair to ask Cam to do any better.

I think the question is - if you put Cam in a good offense, would he do better than last year? I don't think it's clear cut either way - on the one hand if he just can't throw the ball then maybe it doesn't matter who his receivers are. On the other hand, if you look at his on-target % it's bad, but really only a few percentage points worse than the middle of the pack. In other words he was definitely missing more passes than an average QB but not by a huge margin - and of course we don't know how many of those were the result of poor route running, etc.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
48,622
deep inside Guido territory
BB has to think of the entire team. The Patriots know that they basically need a bridge quarterback, and to create a revolving door of veterans would basically make the entire team start over at square one for a second straight year.

As others have said, this signals to me that they're going to be in play to moving up to grab one of these quarterbacks in the draft. And, in the meantime, they keep a guy who was a positive influence in the locker room and have a sense of continuity ... even if the mechanical issues he had last season can't be mitigated.

Wasn't my first choice, but I get the logic.
It is a placeholder so other teams in trade discussions or agents in player discussions don't hold them over a barrel because they don't have anyone signed other than Stidham. So this signing more than anything IMO is a leverage move and if he ends up being the starter then they are comfortable with it.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
20,280
I'd rather go after a guy like Mariota for that money, someone that at they very least is still in his physical prime and can possibly be "fixed".
I suppose the physical prime part might be true, but the "fixed" part is nothing more than a guess that is no more or less wild than "let's see what a full-training camp, non-COVID Newton can do with a better cast than last year."
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
12,660
UWS, NYC
This thread has been a treat!

I think the only move this particularly forgoes is adding Jimmy G. or Mariota or Fitz. I don't mind Mariota or Fitz coming off the table, and only would be interested in Jimmy G as a FA, not in trade.

Can they still add a premiere NFL QB like Watson or Wilson? Deal realities aside, of course they can. Cam can easily be cut loose if he's not willing to ride the bench (where he would be a totally affordable back-up). Probably even Derek Carr is still on the table.

Can they still draft a super-top-tier QB prospect like Fields, ZWilson or Lance? 100%. With no pressure to start on Day One, this is more appealing than ever.

Can they still add a true back-up to upgrade Stidham -- like Tyrod Taylor , or CJ Beatherd? Of course.

And I think this ups the odds they draft a developmental QB. Lance is the all-star of this category, but Mond and Newman are appealing too. The nice thing about these three guys is they prospectively could play a system like the one that suits Newton, which would enhance the transition opportunity.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,731
New York City
All we've heard since last season ended is that Cam didn't want to be a backup. Now he's signed early, before free agency starts, and we're just taking it for granted that Bill has other plans at the position and there's a chance he won't start? I really don't think that's the case. Why not take a peek at the market before committing to a return with the Pats if they didn't at the very least promise him a good shot at starting?
Again I don't think this is how BB operates. I don't think BB himself knows if he has "other plans at the position" - that will be dependent on how free agency and the draft play out. But now at minimum he has someone he clearly is comfortable playing as the starting QB for the season if that's how it shakes out, and they've committed relatively very little under the cap to achieve that (and haven't given up any draft assets). That just seems to be very sensible risk management to me.

(And knowing BB, I virtually guarantee you that he doesn't make any "promises" to any players about playing time. I'm sure if Cam or his agent asked BB what kind of playing time Cam could expect, BB would give some version of the above and if Cam wasn't satisfied with that he could have tried the open market. The fact that he didn't tells me both that he really likes working with BB and that he didn't think it was all that likely he'd get a materially better offer from any other team.)
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
12,660
UWS, NYC
One more thing -- I think in terms of attracting receiving talent, Newton might be the best move they could make at this point.

Agreed, his performance last year was garbage, but he is enormously popular around the league and I bet could recruit well. Who's going to be a better poster boy? Mariota? Fitz? Darnold? Those guys may (or may not) be marginally better, but they're not as appealing as Cam. I don't know that even Jimmy G would be a better WR magnet than Cam.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
35,897
Hartford, CT
All we've heard since last season ended is that Cam didn't want to be a backup. Now he's signed early, before free agency starts, and we're just taking it for granted that Bill has other plans at the position and there's a chance he won't start? I really don't think that's the case. Why not take a peek at the market before committing to a return with the Pats if they didn't at the very least promise him a good shot at starting?
Why wouldn’t he have a viable chance to compete for the job? Who are they acquiring in FA or trade that would make it that player’s job to lose?

His contract doesn’t have a guarantee structure by any account that would make any ‘promise’ to him - which I would be shocked if they gave him anyways - meaningful.

Finally, you don’t think teams have a sense of the market for QBs? What do you think the teams have been doing for weeks? I guarantee the Pats know what they think about Fitzpatrick, Smith, Mariota, and Trubisky, and, like other teams, have a sense of the expected going rate for acquiring any of them. Free agency itself is not the be all, end all for exploring value, and there’s a good chance the Pats aren’t interested in the available FA anyways.