Pats Release Cam Newton

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
31,572
the district
Larger field, larger ball (I remember when I was at Uni in Ontario the CFL was running an ad campaign where the slogan was "Our Balls Are Bigger"), 12 men on the field, pre-snap motion all of the place. It's a fun game. I don't necessarily like the three downs, though.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,493
Berkeley, CA
I assume that it was reasonably close up to the end, but once you make the Jones decision it's best to have one QB, no looking back, no charismatic back-up to divide the locker remote/draw media attention/etc.
Why would that be the assumption? Cam played miserably last season. He had little help, etc., etc., but there were serious underlying flaws in mechanics, accuracy, recognition, etc. that rendered the results almost moot. These flaws are especially egregious given BB's stated preferences for a QB (from that printed sheet provided by Jeremiah). They bring Cam back - he's a big name, gives them credibility and a floor, cheap, perhaps a full TC of coaching might help, etc. - but the film shows almost no improvement in the flaws. He's still poor in recognition, mechanics, etc. The floor is still there, but so is the low ceiling. Meanwhile, Mac is killing it in all the things that matter. He's reading D's, he's accurate, he has pocket presence, etc. This was no contest and they started to see it on Day 1.
 
Last edited:

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,258
New York City
Why would that be the assumption? Cam played miserably last season. He had little help, etc., etc., but there were serious underlying flaws in mechanics, accuracy, recognition, etc. that rendered the results moot. These are especially egregious given BB's stated preferences for a QB (from that printed sheet provided by Jeremiah). They bring Cam back - he's a big name, gives them a floor, perhaps a full TC of coaching - but the film shows almost no improvement in the flaws. He's still poor in recognition, mechanics, etc. The floor is still there, but so is the low ceiling. Meanwhile, Mac is killing it in all the things that matter. He's reading D's, he's accurate, he has pocket presence, etc. This was no contest and they started to see it on Day 1.
The number one, two, and three reason I think it was close is that they were close in reps and playing time throughout training camp. I think if Mac were clearly the answer from day one they would have adjusted the reps accordingly. Now we don't know what BB was thinking--he could have been trying to make Cam look good or trying to protect Mac from public scrutiny but I'm using Occam's razor here.

I agree with you that Jones is the better answer but to push back a little (1) I'm in the camp that Newton was bad, not terrible last year especically with running considered, (2) BB seems to be in that camp too because he re-signed Cam for some semi-real money (cheap for a QB but still, 3.6 million cap hit for someone cut before week 1 isn't small) (3) BB doesn't seem to be a particularly big fan of rookie QBs (not playing them basically until now, torturing them as a defensive coordinator, not using a first on one until now, although the caveat that he had Brady for much of his career obviously applies), and (4) frequently with first round picks teams have a crappy veteran start the season and play for a bit and bring the rookie in later--so even if Jones and Cam are close you protect Jones a little by starting the season with Cam and going to the rookie when you're more confident the rookie is ready.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The number one, two, and three reason I think it was close is that they were close in reps and playing time throughout training camp. I think if Mac were clearly the answer from day one they would have adjusted the reps accordingly. Now we don't know what BB was thinking--he could have been trying to make Cam look good or trying to protect Mac from public scrutiny but I'm using Occam's razor here.

I agree with you that Jones is the better answer but to push back a little (1) I'm in the camp that Newton was bad, not terrible last year especically with running considered, (2) BB seems to be in that camp too because he re-signed Cam for some semi-real money (cheap for a QB but still, 3.6 million cap hit for someone cut before week 1 isn't small) (3) BB doesn't seem to be a particularly big fan of rookie QBs (not playing them basically until now, torturing them as a defensive coordinator, not using a first on one until now, although the caveat that he had Brady for much of his career obviously applies), and (4) frequently with first round picks teams have a crappy veteran start the season and play for a bit and bring the rookie in later--so even if Jones and Cam are close you protect Jones a little by starting the season with Cam and going to the rookie when you're more confident the rookie is ready.
I could easily see Bill thinking all the things you listed in your final paragraph there. And if so, that Mac overcame all of those valid reasons, and did so so clearly that Bill was willing not just to bench Cam but to cut him, makes it really clear that Bill must have seen Mac as significantly outperforming Cam.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,258
New York City
I could easily see Bill thinking all the things you listed in your final paragraph there. And if so, that Mac overcame all of those valid reasons, and did so so clearly that Bill was willing not just to bench Cam but to cut him, makes it really clear that Bill must have seen Mac as significantly outperforming Cam.
Agreed. The easy play was to have Cam start and bench him when you're more comfortable with Mac (after the bye or whatever). This is really a "even as a rookie Mac is just definitely the better option for us to be good in December/the playoffs so lets burn the boats like Cortes and commmit one hundred percent to that team" move.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,493
Berkeley, CA
The number one, two, and three reason I think it was close is that they were close in reps and playing time throughout training camp. I think if Mac were clearly the answer from day one they would have adjusted the reps accordingly. Now we don't know what BB was thinking--he could have been trying to make Cam look good or trying to protect Mac from public scrutiny but I'm using Occam's razor here.

I agree with you that Jones is the better answer but to push back a little (1) I'm in the camp that Newton was bad, not terrible last year especically with running considered, (2) BB seems to be in that camp too because he re-signed Cam for some semi-real money (cheap for a QB but still, 3.6 million cap hit for someone cut before week 1 isn't small) (3) BB doesn't seem to be a particularly big fan of rookie QBs (not playing them basically until now, torturing them as a defensive coordinator, not using a first on one until now, although the caveat that he had Brady for much of his career obviously applies), and (4) frequently with first round picks teams have a crappy veteran start the season and play for a bit and bring the rookie in later--so even if Jones and Cam are close you protect Jones a little by starting the season with Cam and going to the rookie when you're more confident the rookie is ready.
I think BB doesn't play games. He brought Cam in because he thought Cam could help win games. It seems safe to assume that Cam came back believing he'd get a fair chance to start. BB's not going to worry if Cam's going to look good, but he will run him out there and give him an equal chance to win or lose the job. Mac made the choice easy early on (at least it seems clear on tape), but I'd guess BB needed to see the process through and get a large enough sample size for him to make his best decision - for both players.

You mentioned December games in your next post and I think that hints at the goal here. You'll develop Mac faster once you start getting him more reps and, specifically, more game reps. The better bet for a battle-tested Mac by the 1st round of the playoffs is 17 games of reps under his belt. If he's ready to go game 1, but you sit him for a game or two (or more), you're artificially limiting Mac's reps and, quite possibly, costing yourself the opportunity for him to have developed enough to win a playoff game. BB wants to maximize his chances to win in every way possible. We've seen it for 20 years. This is just the latest example.
 
Last edited:

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
20,261
Newton
What’s amazing about this 36 hours later is how OTT the reaction was to Cam’s performance against the Eagles two weeks ago. I caught this the next day and couldn’t believe how excited all of these guys—Steve Young, Randy Moss, Louis Riddick, etc.—were over 8 passes: View: https://youtu.be/KKE6jmDKy4E
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,956
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
What’s amazing about this 36 hours later is how OTT the reaction was to Cam’s performance against the Eagles two weeks ago. I caught this the next day and couldn’t believe how excited all of these guys—Steve Young, Randy Moss, Louis Riddick, etc.—were over 8 passes: View: https://youtu.be/KKE6jmDKy4E
8 passes against an Eagles defense that played none of its best players.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,174
BB wants to maximize his chances to win in every way possible. We've seen it for 20 years. This is just the latest example.
But it's the first one involving the QB position. If you step back, he really didn't handle it all that differently than hundreds of position-player battles over the years. From letting Brady go "a year too soon rather than a year too late" to not basing the ultimate decision on anything other than best chance to win.

I'd really like to know what he really thinks about Stidham. He sat behind a not very good Newton last year, which suggests that he doesn't think much of him. Yet he's still here.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
10,283
The Yay Area
Cam is one of my favorite players ever, even in college. He was so goddamn talented, it's just a shame he refused to get jabbed. I believe with all my heart that if he was vaccinated, he'd be starting Week 1.

I'll continue to root for him wherever he ends up.
He seems like a likable guy… but he’s completely fucking toast. I don’t think he takes a snap this year.

As for Stidham, isn’t he only still on the roster because he’s injured?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,962
I need to borrow from his playbook.
"Aww, I'd really like to help you move, but my back has been acting up. I still get the pizza and beer, though, right?"
Well, he did have genuine and verifiable back surgery, and the CBA does have rules about cutting players on PUP/IR. The team could negotiate an injury settlement with Stidham, but there's no real point for either sides to engage in that discussion right now, as he is not occupying a roster spot.

I don't see much future for Stidham, but I'm also not putting a lot of stock into his limited 2020 snaps either. The likely outcome is that he is on IR for the season, then quietly gets cut sometime in the offseason. The best outcome for Stidham is that he sits the season and gets a chance to get audition reps in training camp in 2022.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
2,513
Worcester
Well, he did have genuine and verifiable back surgery, and the CBA does have rules about cutting players on PUP/IR. The team could negotiate an injury settlement with Stidham, but there's no real point for either sides to engage in that discussion right now, as he is not occupying a roster spot.

I don't see much future for Stidham, but I'm also not putting a lot of stock into his limited 2020 snaps either. The likely outcome is that he is on IR for the season, then quietly gets cut sometime in the offseason. The best outcome for Stidham is that he sits the season and gets a chance to get audition reps in training camp in 2022.
Oh, I agree. I was just miserating about all the moves I have had to help out on.

I think this year will be a net positive for him. He can still go to all the meetings/walkthroughs. The offense is back to the one that he was drafted to run, not the one that was foisted upon him last year- so all the reps that he sees in practices/film will be teachable.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
10,283
The Yay Area
We want to win games, not go backwards!
"The most important thing for us is to win. That’s what we’re here for. Skrub gives us depth at a position that’s an important position," Belichick said. "I don’t know if we’re going to need it. I don’t know if we’re not going to need it. At least he knows our system. Skrub’s been here. It’s an important position.”
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
2,513
Worcester
"The most important thing for us is to win. That’s what we’re here for. Skrub gives us depth at a position that’s an important position," Belichick said. "I don’t know if we’re going to need it. I don’t know if we’re not going to need it. At least he knows our system. Skrub’s been here. It’s an important position.”
I was going to go with:
"Skrub is a great poster. Any board would be happy to have him a part of. It is tough to prepare for Skrub. Skrub can do so much- all around, a great poster. "
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
In certain ways, Cam seems like another in a long list of former esteemed vets who BB tries to resurrect to no avail: Ochocinco, Haynesworth, numerous WR's. But most of those guys never made it past one partial season.

BB has had some successes in that vein as well: Rodney, Randy, Bryan Cox, Brian Waters, et al.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,174
“One of the smartest dopes I’ve ever read. Certainly the smartest in BBTL,” Belichick said of Skrub. “He taught me more about thread locking and board moderation than by far anybody else.”
Isn't that usually followed by "it's always tough to release a player but we always do what's best for the team"?
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
36,684
Hartford, CT
‘If he wants to ban someone he’s gonna ban them or close a thread or whatever, those are really the Dopes’ decisions. You should really ask them, Seoul, I dunno. We deal with the threads and posters we have available. /gross snort’
 

Groovenstein

Member
SoSH Member
“I don’t agree with that," Belichick said, interrupting the question. "So, keep going on with your soliloquy, but I just don’t agree with that. You don’t think you can gauge a dope based on how he warns tims4wins and Kenny F’ing Powers? I mean, who else would you gauge it against? Are you kidding me? E5Yaz, sodenj5, and rodderick -- you don’t think you can gauge a dope based on those posters? I don’t care what their record is. You think there's harder posters around to deal with than them? Harder posters than Powers and soden? I'm not sure what forums you're reading here."
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
1,021
Do you think having a 37 year-old poster ...

"We're on to the week 1 game thread. It's not about the vax posts, it's not about where Cam ends up. We're on to the week 1 game thread"

Do you feel that the posts here are good enough?

"We're getting ready for the week one game thread"
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
4,242
Imaginationland
The season would also be toast if Cam stepped in and played, so whatever. How many teams aren't toast if they lose their starting QB?
I'm never a fan of this kind of thinking. if the team lost their starter for the year, sure. 90% of the time in that scenario, you're toast. What if they get hurt and need to miss 1-8 weeks? Having a capable backup to steal enough games to still get you into the playoffs (or get better seeding) has tremendous value. Obviously not injury related, but Brady missed the first 4 games of the 2016 season, and his backups played well enough for the pats to go 3-1 (against 4 teams that all won 7+ games that year, no pushovers). That had real value, as the Pats finished with the 1 seed and home field. We're spoiled a bit because other than 2008 Brady almost never missed any time, but starting QBs frequently miss a week or a month or half a season, and a non-terrible backup could definitely be the difference between missing and making the playoffs.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,374
Mansfield MA
2017 Eagles, 1999 Rams, 1980 Raiders, 1972 Dolphins...
Edit: 87 WFT, 90 Giants. Who am I missing?
There are also teams that had their starter at the end but a backup's performance helped them get through a tough stretch that would have hurt their seeding otherwise. 2015 Broncos and 2016 Pats come to mind. The 2019 Chiefs would have lost the bye to the Pats if they'd lost both Matt Moore games instead of splitting them. The 1999 Broncos went 4-0 in games Elway missed so they still kept the 1 seed. It's not all that uncommon.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,959
Honorable mention to Frank Reich and his two 1992 playoff victories when stepping in for the injured Jim Kelly. That and two wins in each of 1989 and 1990, one on Monday Night Football against a previously undefeated LA Rams team.
 
Last edited:

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,174
Honorable mention to Frank Reich and his two 1992 playoff victories when stepping in for the injured Jim Kelly. That and two wins in each of 1989 and 1990, one on Monday Night Football against a preciously undefeated LA Rams team.
Does Tony Eason taking the Patriots to the SB (after replacing Grogan who replaced Eason) count?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
49,695
deep inside Guido territory
“I don’t agree with that," Belichick said, interrupting the question. "So, keep going on with your soliloquy, but I just don’t agree with that. You don’t think you can gauge a dope based on how he warns tims4wins and Kenny F’ing Powers? I mean, who else would you gauge it against? Are you kidding me? E5Yaz, sodenj5, and rodderick -- you don’t think you can gauge a dope based on those posters? I don’t care what their record is. You think there's harder posters around to deal with than them? Harder posters than Powers and soden? I'm not sure what forums you're reading here."
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWmQbk5h86w
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
13,736
Richmond, VA
I think Stidham is the backup when he's healthy. The alternatives right now are Brian Freaking Hoyer and Garrett Gilbert.
Get Stidham back healthy, coach him up, show him next preseason, maybe he has to step in for part of a game...turn him into a 4th round draft pick trade.

“I don’t agree with that," Belichick said, interrupting the question. "So, keep going on with your soliloquy, but I just don’t agree with that. You don’t think you can gauge a dope based on how he warns tims4wins and Kenny F’ing Powers? I mean, who else would you gauge it against? Are you kidding me? E5Yaz, sodenj5, and rodderick -- you don’t think you can gauge a dope based on those posters? I don’t care what their record is. You think there's harder posters around to deal with than them? Harder posters than Powers and soden? I'm not sure what forums you're reading here."
don't forget the
"Yeah, well, there was the post he made back in 2003, I think it was an October game. Reverend was hitting post after post, and Yammer, I mean he's tough to post on, Yammer was coming up the middle. They were in a "move the goalposts" spread. Skrub was in a 3-post stance on defense, taking on the double team. I think it was about 1:42 pm on a Tuesday. You know, at Navy they used to do a thing back in the SysOp days where the guy would brush off the man-to-man coverage...the ad hominem, he'd brush it off at the point of attack. So Skrub brushed it off, I think it was Eric Van, and wouldn't let them move the goalposts. Yknow, he took a Socratic route, and his method was right on. Just goes to show how he knows how the game is played, he just knows so much abut the game, and I really respected him for that post, one of the best posts I've ever seen".
(he'd probably go on about the history of BBoard posting going back to the morse code era)
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,338
Santa Monica, CA
Bedard - who has kind of been on fire lately - said this week that he thinks Stidham got back into the coaches' good graces with his offseason work and may be part of the plan later this season (as a backup - not to compete with Mac).
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
8,302
Westwood MA
My recollection of that playoff run was a shit-ton of awesome special teams coverage work.
They recovered a fumbled punt for a TD vs the Raiders, also had turnover luck vs the Jets and Miami as well.

What a run that was, beating the Jets, Raiders and Dolphins on the road, I think they were the first wild card team to get to a Super Bowl, or maybe the first team to win three road playoff games on the way to a Super Bowl.

Turnovers and they ran the ball down teams throats, Eason was a true game manager during that run.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
3,672
Bow, NH
They recovered a fumbled punt for a TD vs the Raiders, also had turnover luck vs the Jets and Miami as well.

What a run that was, beating the Jets, Raiders and Dolphins on the road, I think they were the first wild card team to get to a Super Bowl, or maybe the first team to win three road playoff games on the way to a Super Bowl.

Turnovers and they ran the ball down teams throats, Eason was a true game manager during that run.
This is how I will always remember Tony Eason-pretty much in any game he played
43955