2020 Pats: QB Situation Beyond Cam

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
Guys, the defensive performance last night wasn't because KC was "sleepwalking". It's because NE's defense has got something going against KC. Last year, they played the Chiefs really well too. So to put it in context, here's how the Chiefs' offense has done against NE's defense the past two years...

2019
Chiefs (in Mahomes games against non-Pats opponents): 30 points, 388 yards
Chiefs vs. NE: 23 points, 346 yards
*NE held them to 7 points and 42 yards less than normal

2020
Chiefs (in games against non-Pats opponents): 30 points, 433 yards
Chiefs vs. NE: 19 points, 326 yards
*NE held them to 11 points and 107 yards less than normal

The Patriots have got something figured out against KC. Not that they've totally stopped them, but they do have the tools to slow KC down. This wasn't an aberration. Don't forget, in the AFCCG a couple of years ago, they shut KC out in the first half before Mahomes went crazy. So they're capable.
Pats were lucky KC didn't start tossing screens and little dump offs to their RB, who could have gashed them for easy 6-yard or more gains.
 

Rook05

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
3,115
Boulder, CO
I don’t disagree with any of the points re: Hoyer, but when was the last time a team was forced to fly in on game day for a non-prime time kickoff? I get that the NFL has limited options, but it’s not like COVID started on Labor Day. It’s an utter joke that the Pats (and the Chiefs, for that matter) were put in that position in the first place.

There are dozens of ideas that would give them more flexibility, but this just reinforces the fact that the NFL is all about the bottom line. I love the Pats but this is the least interested I’ve been in a season since I can remember, and it’s not just because of Brady. There’s no way this season doesn’t end up in a giant shitshow of half rosters and uneven schedules.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
I don’t disagree with any of the points re: Hoyer, but when was the last time a team was forced to fly in on game day for a non-prime time kickoff? I get that the NFL has limited options, but it’s not like COVID started on Labor Day. It’s an utter joke that the Pats (and the Chiefs, for that matter) were put in that position in the first place.

There are dozens of ideas that would give them more flexibility, but this just reinforces the fact that the NFL is all about the bottom line. I love the Pats but this is the least interested I’ve been in a season since I can remember, and it’s not just because of Brady. There’s no way this season doesn’t end up in a giant shitshow of half rosters and uneven schedules.
Wrong thread
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
I don't see how anyone could claim that KC did not take this game seriously. The Pats defense played really well all game, while KC's run defense was outmatched.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
I don't know that I've ever been as disappointed in a Belichick decision then in starting Hoyer last night. If that's what Hoyer has to offer, he shouldn't be on the team.

And if Stidham can't beat out Hoyer in his second year, he really shouldn't be on the team either.

Hoyer should be cut today and if the team isn't interested in Stidham I sure as hell hope they have a plan for after this year that isn't just 'sign whatever veteran'
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
I don't know that I've ever been as disappointed in a Belichick decision then in starting Hoyer last night. If that's what Hoyer has to offer, he shouldn't be on the team.

And if Stidham can't beat out Hoyer in his second year, he really shouldn't be on the team either.

Hoyer should be cut today and if the team isn't interested in Stidham I sure as hell hope they have a plan for after this year that isn't just 'sign whatever veteran'
You have to remember that they had exactly ZERO practices after the Cam announcement. Maybe Stidham should have been the #2 all week, I can understand that thought. But it wasn't like BB could have just pivoted to Stidham once the news came down.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
It's like once they got into the red zone he forgot that the opponent would be sending pass rushers. I've never seen such total lack of pocket and game awareness. You might expect that from a rookie surprised by the speed of the game, but not from a veteran. It was absolutely shocking. If I didn't know any better I'd say he was concussed.
Agreed with this, it was shockingly bad. I had low expectations but he managed to take the under. He shouldn't be rostered at this point.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
It's like once they got into the red zone he forgot that the opponent would be sending pass rushers. I've never seen such total lack of pocket and game awareness. You might expect that from a rookie surprised by the speed of the game, but not from a veteran. It was absolutely shocking. If I didn't know any better I'd say he was concussed.
The most maddening thing about the two plays was I don't think KC even brought extra rushers. I think he just stood in the pocket for like 5 seconds.

Edit: sack 1 was a standard 4 man rush. sack 2 was a 5 man rush but he had all the time, it wasn't a jailbreak. Herron eventually got beat around the edge, but not off the snap
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
I don't know that I've ever been as disappointed in a Belichick decision then in starting Hoyer last night. If that's what Hoyer has to offer, he shouldn't be on the team.

And if Stidham can't beat out Hoyer in his second year, he really shouldn't be on the team either.

Hoyer should be cut today and if the team isn't interested in Stidham I sure as hell hope they have a plan for after this year that isn't just 'sign whatever veteran'
Belichick is not psychic. He had to evaluate who gave his team the best chance to win in a shitty situation. Without knowing a ton of stuff we don't know, we cannot know whether it was a sound decision based on the information that he had available when he had to make the decision. When you watch Hoyer shit the bed, it's very easy to say in hindsight what the right decision is. All football decisions are easy in hindsight.

I'd add that outside the red area, Hoyer looked reasonably competent and certainly did not look awful. He looked replacement level which was about all we could hope for. Where he suffered was between the ears. The moment got too big for him and he showed an inability to make hard decisions and execute situational awareness in the biggest moments. You can't criticize Belichick for not predicting that. Those things only reveal themselves in the moment.

Even if Belichick views Stidham as more talented he seemingly put a premium on experience and other factors in a tough situation. When it became a two score game, and he had more information, he adapted. But he has a pretty good track record with making those kinds of calls and the bottom line is that his player let him down last night in the area Belichick cares the most about -- situational awareness. So, now we know at least.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
I don't know that I've ever been as disappointed in a Belichick decision then in starting Hoyer last night.
Easy to say after the fact. If he'd pulled a miracle out of his ass, would you still claim this level of pre-game disappointment?
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
Easy to say after the fact. If he'd pulled a miracle out of his ass, would you still claim this level of pre-game disappointment?
But he didn't. It's not like we need after the fact, it was pretty clear 10 minutes into the game Hoyer had nothing.

What's the upside of starting Hoyer? If Stidham has a future on the team at all, he should have started. If he doesn't, he shouldn't be on the team in the first place unless you're trying to inflate trade value.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
But he didn't. It's not like we need after the fact, it was pretty clear 10 minutes into the game Hoyer had nothing.

What's the upside of starting Hoyer? If Stidham has a future on the team at all, he should have started. If he doesn't, he shouldn't be on the team in the first place unless you're trying to inflate trade value.
I think what we're getting at is that you're upset with the way things played out. Saying the decision to start him was disappointing implies you knew ahead of time that this is what we would see. There's no way to know that.

They should have pulled him after the second red zone malfunction.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
No, I'm quite upset that they started him in the first place. As I said, it doesn't make sense. If Stidham was not ready to go for last night's game then there's just little reason for him to occupy a roster spot.

I didn't think they were going to win last night either way, so for me it says you lack confidence in Stidham, which, whatever. But these are the exact types of games a player like Stidham starts, a game with nothing on the line in the first place. And then if Stidham shits the bed and throws a couple picks - whatever.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
No, I'm quite upset that they started him in the first place. As I said, it doesn't make sense. If Stidham was not ready to go for last night's game then there's just little reason for him to occupy a roster spot.

I didn't think they were going to win last night either way, so for me it says you lack confidence in Stidham, which, whatever. But these are the exact types of games a player like Stidham starts, a game with nothing on the line in the first place. And then if Stidham shits the bed and throws a couple picks - whatever.
Are you of the mindset that Stidham should have been the backup heading into the game, if Cam was the starter?
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
Are you of the mindset that Stidham should have been the backup heading into the game, if Cam was the starter?
I don't know. Maybe. I could be convinced either way here.

I'm definitely of the mindset that in a no Cam situation, whether it was that they didn't sign him, or that he's injured or sick, there is no benefit to playing Hoyer. At least if Stidham sucks you can realize that's what it is.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
No, I'm quite upset that they started him in the first place. As I said, it doesn't make sense. If Stidham was not ready to go for last night's game then there's just little reason for him to occupy a roster spot.
Fair enough. Next time, though, when you feel this strongly about the situation, it would help if you post it ahead of time, and folks won't doubt your motivation.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
Fair enough. Next time, though, when you feel this strongly about the situation, it would help if you post it ahead of time, and folks won't doubt your motivation.
Pretty sure I did. I was frustrated the moment Hoyer was named the starter.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
I don't know. Maybe. I could be convinced either way here.

I'm definitely of the mindset that in a no Cam situation, whether it was that they didn't sign him, or that he's injured or sick, there is no benefit to playing Hoyer. At least if Stidham sucks you can realize that's what it is.
If you think that Hoyer should be the backup if Cam starts, then Hoyer HAS to start once Cam is ruled out, because at least Hoyer got some snaps during the week as the backup, whereas Stidham only ran the practice team during the week. There simply aren't any 3rd string QB reps during the season. Once Cam was ruled out it's not like they could just flip the switch to Stidham if Hoyer was preparing all week as the backup. That's not how it works.

If you think Stidham should have been the backup the entire time - and I'm not sure where I stand on that either, although I can understand why they'd choose Hoyer - then your argument is valid.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
None of us here know what Belichick saw in practice and in training camp. The media accounts were that Stidham was not good at all during camp, and that Hoyer looked like he could be a competent backup. But we also know from media and team reports that Hoyer had been getting the #2 reps during practice.

It would be fair game to criticize Belichick for starting Hoyer over Stidham against Denver, based on what we all saw. One could criticize Belichick the GM for the current backup QB situation, but the team had no cap space until the opt-outs happened, and by then the available QB's are likely to be no better. But criticizing Belichick for starting Hoyer in an emergency situation seems misguided.
 

genoasalami

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2006
2,579
FWIW Bedard on BSJ had a piece on this today and one of the takeaways is that people around the team say the injury had nothing to do with Stidham losing the competition. He just didn't perform like they had hoped.
He will probably end up like most QBs picked on day three of the draft .... bounce around from team to team and then fade away into oblivion....
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
None of us here know what Belichick saw in practice and in training camp. The media accounts were that Stidham was not good at all during camp, and that Hoyer looked like he could be a competent backup. But we also know from media and team reports that Hoyer had been getting the #2 reps during practice.

It would be fair game to criticize Belichick for starting Hoyer over Stidham against Denver, based on what we all saw. One could criticize Belichick the GM for the current backup QB situation, but the team had no cap space until the opt-outs happened, and by then the available QB's are likely to be no better. But criticizing Belichick for starting Hoyer in an emergency situation seems misguided.
I'm surprised people are so upset with Hoyer and the decision to start Hoyer. Yes, his play yesterday was frustrating and a more competent QB would have won that game for the Patriots, and sure, Stidham looked better when he checked into the game. But that game yesterday was so wacky, first Cam testing positive on Saturday so BB has to make a decision on short notice. Then the team has the unheard of scenario of flying to KC the day of the game, probably after a long and restless night at home. On top of that, several starters on the O-line are missing. Even if Stidham had shown some more potential in practice, the decision to start the veteran who has been in the system for years is an easy call. If Stidham started from the start, do the Pats win the game? Maybe, but that is an awful lot of Monday (Tuesday) morning quarterbacking.

Hoyer is a capable backup QB. He didn't play well last night under crazy circumstances against a very good team, a team that had crushed the reigning MVP and his offense the previous week.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
Hoyer is a capable backup QB. He didn't play well last night under crazy circumstances against a very good team, a team that had crushed the reigning MVP and his offense the previous week.
First, he not only didn’t play well, he was absolutely horrendous, way below replacement level when average QB play gives them a chance. Second, it isn’t like he was facing a defense that played particularly well. The errors he made was self inflicted, not great defensive plays. I don’t see the evidence that he’s a capable backup. Maybe he once was but that’s not what we saw yesterday.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
First, he not only didn’t play well, he was absolutely horrendous, way below replacement level when average QB play gives them a chance. Second, it isn’t like he was facing a defense that played particularly well. The errors he made was self inflicted, not great defensive plays. I don’t see the evidence that he’s a capable backup. Maybe he once was but that’s not what we saw yesterday.
I know he played poorly, but you don't think given the unbelievable circumstances in which that game was played, that perhaps his performance might have been an outlier? I'm all for starting Stidham against Denver, but I really have a hard time getting mad at Hoyer, or acting like this was a spectacular blunder by BB.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
First, he not only didn’t play well, he was absolutely horrendous, way below replacement level when average QB play gives them a chance. Second, it isn’t like he was facing a defense that played particularly well. The errors he made was self inflicted, not great defensive plays. I don’t see the evidence that he’s a capable backup. Maybe he once was but that’s not what we saw yesterday.
I don't argue the point. I just don't believe it was possible to know ahead of time that Hoyer would have been as bad as he was. The circumstances do have to be taken into account as well.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
I really have a hard time getting mad at Hoyer, or acting like this was a spectacular blunder by BB.
And the post-Brady era is in its infancy. The agita has just begun
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
I know he played poorly, but you don't think given the unbelievable circumstances in which that game was played, that perhaps his performance might have been an outlier? I'm all for starting Stidham against Denver, but I really have a hard time getting mad at Hoyer, or acting like this was a spectacular blunder by BB.
Fully agree here. I'm more mad about leaving Hoyer with 0 timeouts and 17 seconds on the clock in the first half than the decision to start him.
 

genoasalami

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2006
2,579
Fully agree here. I'm more mad about leaving Hoyer with 0 timeouts and 17 seconds on the clock in the first half than the decision to start him.
Why? Because at this point in his career he doesn't have the whereabouts to just throw the ball into sec 210 instead of doing the ONE thing he couldn't do in that situation?
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
I know he played poorly, but you don't think given the unbelievable circumstances in which that game was played, that perhaps his performance might have been an outlier? I'm all for starting Stidham against Denver, but I really have a hard time getting mad at Hoyer, or acting like this was a spectacular blunder by BB.
Yes the circumstances need to be taken into account, and I’m not mad at Hoyer. In Bill we trust ultimately but that was an all timer in terms of poor performance. But I’m more objecting to the notion that Hoyer is a capable backup. He may not be anymore and he didn’t look like one yesterday even with context.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,742
It has been painfully obvious that Hoyer is no longer an NFL QB for many years. Take a look at the games he played with Indy last year or a few years back with SF or Chicago. He was absolutely horrible and it’s a joke that a guy like Hoyer get starts in the league, year after year, when Kap sits. It’s not his fault he’s terrible but it’s on the team for trusting that he can do something that he’s proven that he cannot.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,775
Hartford, CT
‘Painfully obvious’ he’s not a guy who should stick on a roster for ‘years’? That’s some kind of take. Two of the top personnel guys in the league have carried him as a backup in the past few seasons (and before that, John Lynch seems to have an eye for putting a roster together). How good do you think second and third string QB in this league tend to be, anyways?

I think his time is coming to an end based on what we saw yesterday, but I think you’re overstating your case.
 

Reggie's Racquet

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
7,237
Florida/Montana
‘Painfully obvious’ he’s not a guy who should stick on a roster for ‘years’? That’s some kind of take. Two of the top personnel guys in the league have carried him as a backup in the past few seasons (and before that, John Lynch seems to have an eye for putting a roster together). How good do you think second and third string QB in this league tend to be, anyways?

I think his time is coming to an end based on what we saw yesterday, but I think you’re overstating your case.
Yes and for all we know Hoyer may have a ton of value on the sidelines with a clipboard or headset which is where he should stay unless there is an emergency and he is the only option.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
BB said today that the injury played a part in Stidham sliding to #3. In a condensed preseason he just did not get the reps needed.
 

genoasalami

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2006
2,579
That would have been grounding, 10 second run off, half over anyway.
Yes. Sec 210 may have been grounding, but there are may other multiple other places he could have thrown it way, including any pass out of the back of the end zone. Bottom line. He should have known when he was behind center. Just. Don't. Get. Sacked.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Yes. Sec 210 may have been grounding, but there are may other multiple other places he could have thrown it way, including any pass out of the back of the end zone. Bottom line. He should have known when he was behind center. Just. Don't. Get. Sacked.
No, any pass out of the back of the end zone could be grounding too. See Brady in Seattle in 2012. It was an awful terrible play by Hoyer but they didn’t leave him in a great situation.
 

esasky's vertigo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23
Lost in the Supermarket
BB said today that the injury played a part in Stidham sliding to #3. In a condensed preseason he just did not get the reps needed.
Given that, it makes sense to go with a 12 year veteran.

I also don't get the, "if Stidham can't beat Hoyer, why keep him?" logic, especially in a year where you're brining a new QB into the system for the first time in 20 years, and it's the most uncertain year in league history, with everything around Covid. As last night, and Hoyer, unfortunately showed, this is the year to carry 3 qbs. It's week 4, and they've all taken snaps; they all may have a start by week 5.

That's smart roster management, if we grant that a 12 year vet with multiples stints on the team, who played under McDaniels and behind Brady for years, suddenly turning into Joe Webb was unexpected to all involved.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Hoyer was competent in stretches against the Chiefs, the thing is his mistakes were awful and came at the worst possible moments. I think Denver has nothing so I'd start Stidham to see what he's got, but I don't think he ouplayed Hoyer yesterday, he threw a horrific interception, looked very jumpy and his best drive was all Damien Harris (though the TD pass was a nice ball). Considering all the uncertainty surrounding Newton and who will be the QB next year, it makes sense to maximize his snaps against a team that really should have no business scoring on the Pats defense.
 

mikeot

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2006
8,148
Good game against Denver will do wonders for Stidham’s confidence and poise a la next year’s prospects.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,536
In the simulacrum
Kap also seems like he could step into the Cam offense without Josh having to throw out half the plays.
(Assuming Kap has anything left, which I doubt, considering it’s been what, 4 years since he played?)
This is essentially what I've been thinking since they signed Newton.

Edit: what do they have to lose?
 

lostjumper

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 27, 2009
1,277
Concord, NH
Kaepernick last played in a football game December 24, 2016. I understand that people want to see him play because of his platform, but he is not an option in 2020. Hoyer is a far better option than Kaep these days, and I'm ready to see Hoyer cut. Kaepernicks name needs to stop coming up every time a qb spot opens up.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Kaepernick wants big money to sign. It's not going to happen. And we should stop talking about it.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Citation needed.
I am now putting caveat on this--the XFL reached out to him and the report was that his demands were exorbitant. Would he have those demands of the NFL? Maybe, maybe not. I do know his tryout thing didn't appear to be him taking it seriously and I also think that if someone like BB or Pete Carroll thought he'd help the team at whatever his salary demands were, they'd sign him, which is really the only point I should make.
 

Garshaparra

New Member
Feb 27, 2008
527
McCarver's Mushy Mouth
I wonder what it would take to trade for Brissett. He's a free agent after this year, and the Colts already paid his roster bonus, so it's all base salary. He's paid $6M for the year, $375K per game for 11 games would be a cap commitment of about $4.1M, which the Pats could surely do. They seem ready to ride Rivers for the season.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
I wonder what it would take to trade for Brissett. He's a free agent after this year, and the Colts already paid his roster bonus, so it's all base salary. He's paid $6M for the year, $375K per game for 11 games would be a cap commitment of about $4.1M, which the Pats could surely do. They seem ready to ride Rivers for the season.
What's the point though? To try to win a game or two if Cam is out? I'd rather roll with Stidham, Brissett has been gone for 3+ years.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
What's the point though? To try to win a game or two if Cam is out? I'd rather roll with Stidham, Brissett has been gone for 3+ years.
I'll yield to someone who knows the cap rules better, but if they have the cap space it would feel better bringing Brissett into a game they need to win if Cam goes down than it would Stidham or (shiver) Hoyer.