Pats QB Options

[Marceline]

The people taking joy at dunking on Belichick right now (cough, cough, Rex Ryan, cough, cough, Shank) really need to go back and watch the 2001 Super Bowl against the Rams, or the 2003 AFCCG against the Colts, the 2004 AFCCG against the Steelers (a team that destroyed them in the regular season) or the final Super Bowl against the Rams. Or read the comments about how the team practiced the exact goal line play with Malcolm Butler prior to the Super Bowl, or how the players said they were still going strong in the track meet agains the Falcons and felt that all that hill work helped them make the necessary plays in the 2nd half.

Yes, the players are indeed a huge part of it, and deserve every bit of the accolades that are thrown Belichick's way. But coaching matters, and they would have been lucky to win one Super Bowl with Rexie's feet on the sideline, never mind 6.

To me, the fact they won 7 games this year as bad as the roster was and with Cam at QB is just further proof of how amazing a coach Belichick is.

I feel like any other coach with the collection of players the Pats had this year doesn't get more than 4 wins.

 

[Captaincoop]

Certainly. It's not like they don't have any good WRs. Guys like Edelman, Meyers, Harry, Byrd are all capable secondary options so I don't think they need a complete overhaul or anything. But they really need that #1 or #1B type, especially since they are now without anyone you need to worry about at TE. Adding a guy like Robinson would potentially transform this passing game (assuming we actually have a functional QB).

Robinson
Edelman
Harry
Meyers

Get that and things look a lot less dire.

Agree with your point, but one nitpick: Harry is not an NFL receiver.

 

[Saints Rest]

Certainly. It's not like they don't have any good WRs. Guys like Edelman, Meyers, Harry, Byrd are all capable secondary options so I don't think they need a complete overhaul or anything. But they really need that #1 or #1B type, especially since they are now without anyone you need to worry about at TE. Adding a guy like Robinson would potentially transform this passing game (assuming we actually have a functional QB).

Robinson
Edelman
Harry
Meyers

Get that and things look a lot less dire.

I agree 100%. Which is why I want to see them acquire a FA QB (or a cheap trade -- something like a 4th round pick) so they can consider using #15 on either Pitts or one of the top WR's. I was looking thru the mocks yesterday (is there any mock who has shown any track record of successfully matching what BB does???), and most of the mocks had them taking either Mac Jones, Pitts or a wideout.

Add one of the top 5 FA vet WR's and then either a Waddle, Smith or Pitts, and suddenly, your WR/TE room is not so barren.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Pitts is the only WR/TE I would want him taking at 15. I would also consider Waddle because he could be like a Tyreek Hill. However I think there are guys who can give you a similar profile like Toney later on in the draft. Tutu Atwell is another one of those types. Marquez Stevenson has some of that to his game.

1) There are so many good edges, OTs, OLs, and CBs who should be there at 15. You don't need to spend a high pick on a WR when this draft, like last year, will be 15-20 deep for day 1 and 2 receivers. The difference between WR3/4 available at 15 and WR7/8/9/10 isn't that much.
2) There isn't an alpha X outside type aside from Chase you'd want to take at 15.
3) Pitts is an otherworldly receiving weapon so he is the exception. He can line up outside and beat press. He routinely destroys any DB you put on him. He has a huge catch radius. Pitts plays like a much smaller receiver with his breaks and plays like he is 8 feet tall in terms of his catch radius. He is a freak of nature. Who cares if he can't block that well. And that is a debatable point. I am much harsher on his blocking than others.

If you look at the positions Bill values early it isn't WR. If you look at the positions of need for this team over the next 1-3 years with positional scarcity and some of the freaks of nature on defense who would be available at 15 I just can't see Bill going WR early and I don't blame him.

 

[BaseballJones]

If Pitts is somehow available at 15, BB would be crazy to not jump on that. That guy is a freak at the TE position.

 

[SMU_Sox]

If Pitts is somehow available at 15, BB would be crazy to not jump on that. That guy is a freak at the TE position.

This team doesn't have enough ass kickers. Pitts is a blue-chip ass kicker who defenses will have to game plan around. He's a better receiver than Hock from a couple years ago but is not in the same class as a blocker. (Hock will probably be an average blocker whereas Pitts will always be below average inline - outside he might be an average stalk blocker. He has a ton of technique issues with punch placement, feet stopping, getting bent over, etc.) I know SuperNomario is higher on his blocking than I am but I concede if you used Pitts on crack-toss or got him to just seal off a safety or smaller LB he'd be fine in outside zone. You just don't want Pitts inline 1:1 against a DE or DT.

Pitts is also a QB improver. Since his catch radius is like a black hole he is going to bailout less accurate or QBs who throw the ball later to him when he is less open.

Chase is a fine prospect in his own right. He's like a mid-level version of a Julio Jones type. In a vacuum though I'd take Pitts over Chase. It would be close but that's how special and multifunctional Pitts is. Plus, there are just not a ton of guys like him in the game.

 

[BaseballJones]

The Patriots used to have the largest in-game positional advantage in football with Gronk. Now that same position has them at the biggest DISadvantage in the league. Pitts would change that dramatically. I'm super high on this guy but unfortunately, I don't think he'll be around at 15. But if he's available at 12 or 13, would it be worth BB spending some draft capital to move up a few slots to get him?

 

[RedOctober3829]

This team doesn't have enough ass kickers. Pitts is a blue-chip ass kicker who defenses will have to game plan around. He's a better receiver than Hock from a couple years ago but is not in the same class as a blocker. (Hock will probably be an average blocker whereas Pitts will always be below average inline - outside he might be an average stalk blocker. He has a ton of technique issues with punch placement, feet stopping, getting bent over, etc.) I know SuperNomario is higher on his blocking than I am but I concede if you used Pitts on crack-toss or got him to just seal off a safety or smaller LB he'd be fine in outside zone. You just don't want Pitts inline 1:1 against a DE or DT.

Pitts is also a QB improver. Since his catch radius is like a black hole he is going to bailout less accurate or QBs who throw the ball later to him when he is less open.

Chase is a fine prospect in his own right. He's like a mid-level version of a Julio Jones type. In a vacuum though I'd take Pitts over Chase. It would be close but that's how special and multifunctional Pitts is. Plus, there are just not a ton of guys like him in the game.

Yeah Pitts is an easy one for me to take over Chase.

 

[tims4wins]

If Stafford is traded to SF, and you are presented with these two options, which do you take?

1) Select Mac Jones at 15
2) Trade a 5th (? 6th?) to SF for Jimmy

I think solid arguments could be made for both.

You wouldn't be giving up much to get Jimmy, he has familiarity in the system, and you wouldn't be tied to him long term. On the flip side, injuries and high salary.

With Jones, you're using a precious first rounder (so opportunity cost of adding other talent) and he is a but of an unknown given the Bama talent level. But he's a Saban player, and will be a cheap QB for 4-5 years.

 

[Jeff Van GULLY]

Wouldn't be shocked if the Pats did both.

Jimmy isn't a guarantee and gives Jones 1-2 years to develop.

 

[BaseballJones]

If Stafford is traded to SF, and you are presented with these two options, which do you take?

1) Select Mac Jones at 15
2) Trade a 5th (? 6th?) to SF for Jimmy

I think solid arguments could be made for both.

You wouldn't be giving up much to get Jimmy, he has familiarity in the system, and you wouldn't be tied to him long term. On the flip side, injuries and high salary.

With Jones, you're using a precious first rounder (so opportunity cost of adding other talent) and he is a but of an unknown given the Bama talent level. But he's a Saban player, and will be a cheap QB for 4-5 years.

If Pitts is available at 15, I trade for Jimmy and use the pick on Pitts.

EDIT: I get that the draft would come after the ability to sign JG. But I'd rather have JG + 15 than Mac Jones, and I'm a big Mac Jones guy.

 

[tims4wins]

Wouldn't be shocked if the Pats did both.

Jimmy isn't a guarantee and gives Jones 1-2 years to develop.

That's an interesting point

 

[Saints Rest]

The Patriots used to have the largest in-game positional advantage in football with Gronk. Now that same position has them at the biggest DISadvantage in the league. Pitts would change that dramatically. I'm super high on this guy but unfortunately, I don't think he'll be around at 15. But if he's available at 12 or 13, would it be worth BB spending some draft capital to move up a few slots to get him?

I found this Mock aggregator that has Pitts going to the Pats. (again, it's an aggregator of all the mocks). Many of the mocks I saw had Pitts going at 11 to the Giants.

 

[BaseballJones]

I found this Mock aggregator that has Pitts going to the Pats. (again, it's an aggregator of all the mocks). Many of the mocks I saw had Pitts going at 11 to the Giants.

Do. Not. Get. My. Hopes. Up. Please.

 

[SMU_Sox]

IMO he will do both: draft a guy (maybe high maybe not and we all know I can't stand Mac Jones) and get a veteran QB bridge/ semi-competent starter. I think Jimmy G is a mediocre game manager who can't stay healthy but it's not like the other veteran FAs are all-stars.

 

[Cellar-Door]

If Stafford is traded to SF, and you are presented with these two options, which do you take?

1) Select Mac Jones at 15
2) Trade a 5th (? 6th?) to SF for Jimmy

I think solid arguments could be made for both.

You wouldn't be giving up much to get Jimmy, he has familiarity in the system, and you wouldn't be tied to him long term. On the flip side, injuries and high salary.

With Jones, you're using a precious first rounder (so opportunity cost of adding other talent) and he is a but of an unknown given the Bama talent level. But he's a Saban player, and will be a cheap QB for 4-5 years.

If we use 15 on Mac Jones I'll be pissed, he's the same exact player as Jake Fromm.

I think we'll get a vet and draft someone. But hopefully if the top 4 QBs are off the board we'll trade down, or take a mid-round QB (Newman?, Trask?).

 

[SMU_Sox]

Mock drafts are rarely right. Honestly if you want to know who is the best at identifying prototypical Patriots it is Phil Perry and Evan Lazar. Patriots have some established patterns with the types of guys they take rounds 1-3.

Edit: let me give you an example since I also study this. I can't remember if I figured this out or SN did... but every offensive lineman they have drafted in the top 3 rounds either tested as a 7-9+ RAS (so highly athletic) but also played left tackle at least one of his years in college.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Sign Fitzmagic
Draft a QB in the first or second round

 

[dynomite]

I could see them potentially taking a flyer on him as a backup on a short-term deal in a 3QB scenario where they have, say, Jimmy G or other stopgap vet, a rookie drafted in a lower round, and Mariota. But I certainly wouldn't want him starting for the Pats under any scenario other than their #1 QB is injured and whatever rookie they have isn't ready yet (what you might call the Brian Hoyer situation).

Do you mean trying to roster and potentially spend draft picks to acquire both Jimmy G (currently at ~$27M I believe) and Mariota (at ~$10M under his current contract), AND then also spending a high-ish pick (3rd/4th round) on the QB room? I don't think that's likely given the holes that need to be filled across the roster.

If the Pats do plan to draft a QB -- hopefully "the" QB -- I think there's only going to be the opportunity to add one of the "medium" name veterans, whether Jimmy G (who is perhaps a "big" name), Mariota, Fitzmagic, or someone else.

I think a lot of teams are searching for 2021's Tannehill or Bridgewater -- in other words, a highly touted QB who struggled with his original franchise but could still turn into a solid starter in a better situation. Is it Mariota? Is it Jameis, the only person drafted ahead of him that year? Or did all of them flame out for a reason?

But, if they are thinking along those lines, I'd rather they get someone like Tyrod Taylor who might command a bit more money but for whom they wouldn't have to give up any assets since he's a free agent (whether he'd have any interest in being a backup/change of pace QB for the Pats in any event is an open question, of course).

I know you were using it as an example, but I'd put money on Tyrod ending up with the Lions as their cheap veteran caretaker QB. He was with Anthony Lynn in Buffalo and LAC and knows his system better than basically anyone in the NFL, and seems perfectly suited to being the veteran starter on a bad team keeping the job warm for a rookie QB which I imagine is what will happen in Detroit.

 

[Captaincoop]

Looking at a couple of the "expert" mock drafts, it seems like they're all expecting the first 14 (i.e. pre-Patriot) picks to be signifcantly offense-heavy. Anywhere from 10-12 of the first 14 picks being offensive players, with 6-8 QBs/WRs.

If that holds true, and Belichick picks at 15 with all but one or two of the defensive players in the draft available...I have a hard time believing he's picking a QB or WR there instead of either trading down or taking one of the top 3 defensive players in the draft.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Looking at a couple of the "expert" mock drafts, it seems like they're all expecting the first 14 (i.e. pre-Patriot) picks to be signifcantly offense-heavy. Anywhere from 10-12 of the first 14 picks being offensive players, with 6-8 QBs/WRs.

If that holds true, and Belichick picks at 15 with all but one or two of the defensive players in the draft available...I have a hard time believing he's picking a QB or WR there instead of either trading down or taking one of the top 3 defensive players in the draft.

If both are available, do you take Kyle Pitts or Micah Parsons at 15?

 

[BigSoxFan]

Re: Pitts

He's a great player and I would absolutely take him at #15 along with everyone else assuming that pick isn't being used for a larger QB deal. Am I crazy in thinking that there's a decent chance he might be:

5) Bengals - probably too high for Pitts here and there will be other talent, maybe even Sewell, available
6) Eagles - Goedert in the fold so seems unlikely
7) Lions - Hockenson already top TE
8) Panthers - Probably going QB here, no? Ian Thomas isn't very good so would be a positional fit at least
9) Broncos - Already have Fant and tons of other pass catchers
10) Cowboys - Likely need to use this pick on defense
11) Giants - Engram is pretty solid and, like Cowboys, probably looking defense here. But can't rule it out since they do need pass catchers
12) Niners - Kittle in the fold. And this pick might be traded
13) Chargers - My big concern with Henry being a FA. Really hope they plan on re-signing him
14) Vikings - Probably need to go defense and have Irv Smith emerging
15) Patriots - Yes, please

Obviously, you have potential for trading up but if the order holds, I feel like we may have a shot.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

To me, the fact they won 7 games this year as bad as the roster was and with Cam at QB is just further proof of how amazing a coach Belichick is.

I feel like any other coach with the collection of players the Pats had this year doesn't get more than 4 wins.

See! He's screwing up the draft again!

 

[Captaincoop]

If both are available, do you take Kyle Pitts or Micah Parsons at 15?

Me, I would love to have that dilemma, since we'd be adding the Patriots' first "dude the other team actually has to worry about" in years.

Belichick? He'll go with Navy fullback/kick coverage specialist Kent Gunderson, who, after serving active duty on a submarine for 4 years, is likely to be a top-five kick coverage guy in the AFC East.

 

[Saints Rest]

Re: Pitts

He's a great player and I would absolutely take him at #15 along with everyone else assuming that pick isn't being used for a larger QB deal. Am I crazy in thinking that there's a decent chance he might be:

5) Bengals - probably too high for Pitts here and there will be other talent, maybe even Sewell, available
6) Eagles - Goedert in the fold so seems unlikely
7) Lions - Hockenson already top TE
8) Panthers - Probably going QB here, no? Ian Thomas isn't very good so would be a positional fit at least
9) Broncos - Already have Fant and tons of other pass catchers
10) Cowboys - Likely need to use this pick on defense
11) Giants - Engram is pretty solid and, like Cowboys, probably looking defense here. But can't rule it out since they do need pass catchers
12) Niners - Kittle in the fold. And this pick might be traded
13) Chargers - My big concern with Henry being a FA. Really hope they plan on re-signing him
14) Vikings - Probably need to go defense and have Irv Smith emerging
15) Patriots - Yes, please

Obviously, you have potential for trading up but if the order holds, I feel like we may have a shot.

The only teams I've seen taking Pitts in any of the mocks (and I've looked at about 10 of them) are Carolina (8) and NYG (11). But no one suggesting a trade up form back half of the first to grab him, which could also happen, presumably.

 

[Saints Rest]

Mock drafts are rarely right. Honestly if you want to know who is the best at identifying prototypical Patriots it is Phil Perry and Evan Lazar. Patriots have some established patterns with the types of guys they take rounds 1-3.

Edit: let me give you an example since I also study this. I can't remember if I figured this out or SN did... but every offensive lineman they have drafted in the top 3 rounds either tested as a 7-9+ RAS (so highly athletic) but also played left tackle at least one of his years in college.

Phil Perry has the Pats taking Christian Darrisaw, OT, Virginia Tech.

This isn't what you were hoping for. You know it. I know it. But look at how the board fell. All five of the top quarterbacks are gone. All three of the top receivers are gone. The top tight end in the class is gone. The top two corners are gone. The top edge defender is gone.

Miami edge Greg Rousseau could be an option here, potentially. Maybe receivers Rashod Bateman of Minnesota or Rondale Moore of Purdue would make sense. But there's risk associated with all three of those in terms of how they'll translate to the next level.

A seemingly safer option here would be the 6-foot-5, 315-pound tackle out of Blacksburg, who is a mauling run-blocker and plenty athletic to be considered a long-term starter at left tackle. Darrisaw dominated good opponents when facing Miami and Pitt this year, and according to Pro Football Focus, he did not allow a sack this season.

Like it or not, tackle is a need for the Patriots. Follow the dominos: Joe Thuney could depart via free agency; Michael Onwenu could kick inside to left guard; Marcus Cannon's future is uncertain. And not only is there little clarity at right tackle for 2021, there's little clarity at left tackle for 2022 and beyond as Isaiah Wynn is scheduled to become a free agent after next season. Darrisaw has been starting at left tackle since his true freshman season, but perhaps he could play on the right side next season and then move back to his natural spot.

The Patriots will get a good player at No. 15. It just might not be a player at the position you want.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

Sign Fitzmagic
Draft a QB in the first or second round

With all of the available QB talent out there, I would actually prefer to NOT use a high draft pick on a QB.

They need elite talent across the board. Continue to build the roster, select QBs in the 2-4 rounds and hope they develop, and fill in with veteran QBs in the meantime.

 

[bsj]

If we use 15 on Mac Jones I'll be pissed, he's the same exact player as Jake Fromm.

I think we'll get a vet and draft someone. But hopefully if the top 4 QBs are off the board we'll trade down, or take a mid-round QB (Newman?, Trask?).

Agreed. If those two options exist I go with JG, use that 1 on a legit playmaker, and build around him. Take a flyer on a kid in round 4 if you still want a young prospect to groom.

 

[SMU_Sox]

@RedOctober3829 Parsons, Collins, and to a lesser degree Browning (Ohio State) all have that ILB/OLB versatility that BB likes. Parsons is also a freak. Because Pitts can't block that well I think Parsons is more of a perfect fit BUT there is a rumor of an assault arrest and commitment to the game questions for Parsons. If we are just going with measurables and tape I think Parsons being able to play edge and the scarcity of good front 7 versatile players gives Parsons the slight nod over Pitts.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

Good stuff here on Jamie Newman. Looking forward to seeing him compete in Mobile. Getting nervous he may not last to the Pats' third-round comp pick, though trades undoubtedly will occur between now and then.

Fitz and Jamie Newman would be my favorite scenario. Not sure it's the smartest, but I've rooted before for those two guys.

Bleacher Report: Jamie Newman

 

[Cellar-Door]

The article is interesting if you have the Athletic, but this chart.....
View: https://twitter.com/benbbaldwin/status/1355220443066740737


Jimmy G really can't throw to the sidelines. One of the reason's I'm not a fan, he puts a serious damper on your ability to use the whole field and open up your offense.

 

[biggreen]

Along the lines of a stop-gap candidate, if they go that route, what are people’s views of minshew? When thinking about JG and fitz (guys you hope manage a game and not lose it), seems like he is less proven but with possible upside? With jags picking Lawrence, he should be available and still on low salary. Guess it depends on asking price.

 

[djbayko]

The article is interesting if you have the Athletic, but this chart.....
View: https://twitter.com/benbbaldwin/status/1355220443066740737


Jimmy G really can't throw to the sidelines. One of the reason's I'm not a fan, he puts a serious damper on your ability to use the whole field and open up your offense.

At first I didn't notice the color coding in the title, and I was confused by the fact that they used colors typically used to indicate hot and cold (orange and blue)...but in reverse.

 

[BaseballJones]

The article is interesting if you have the Athletic, but this chart.....
View: https://twitter.com/benbbaldwin/status/1355220443066740737


Jimmy G really can't throw to the sidelines. One of the reason's I'm not a fan, he puts a serious damper on your ability to use the whole field and open up your offense.

Look at that gorgeous field of fire in the middle at the 30 yard line for Watson.

 

[snowmanny]

Look at that gorgeous field of fire in the middle at the 30 yard line for Watson.

Is it named DeAndré?

 

[Cellar-Door]

Is it named DeAndré?

Probably a lot of Will Fuller bombs in there

 

[OnTheBlack]

If both are available, do you take Kyle Pitts or Micah Parsons at 15?

Parsons without question. A game changing edge player

 

[OnTheBlack]

Why are the jags not involved in this? I get it if Watson doesn’t want to go there, but Watson for Lawrence who says no? Seems like a good trade for both sides.

 

[Saints Rest]

I think the Jags say no. If for no other reason than Trevor will be much cheaper for the next five years, allowing them room to get other stuff.

 

[Beomoose]

With all of the available QB talent out there, I would actually prefer to NOT use a high draft pick on a QB.

They need elite talent across the board. Continue to build the roster, select QBs in the 2-4 rounds and hope they develop, and fill in with veteran QBs in the meantime.

The track record of of recent drafts, though, indicates that picking a quarterback outside R1 isn't a "hope they develop" situation so much as "we're buying a lottery ticket." Im all on board if we have a decent or better QB locked up on the team and want to grab a lottery ticket/longshot later in the draft, but if its draft day and we have no starter of quality on the team I don't see how that's a cromulent plan. Unless we're shooting for a higher 2022 pick.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

The track record of of recent drafts, though, indicates that picking a quarterback outside R1 isn't a "hope they develop" situation so much as "we're buying a lottery ticket." Im all on board if we have a decent or better QB locked up on the team and want to grab a lottery ticket/longshot later in the draft, but if its draft day and we have no starter of quality on the team I don't see how that's a cromulent plan. Unless we're shooting for a higher 2022 pick.

Yeah, my presumption is to grab a vet or two and spend draft capital elsewhere.

 

[Silverdude2167]

The article is interesting if you have the Athletic, but this chart.....
View: https://twitter.com/benbbaldwin/status/1355220443066740737


Jimmy G really can't throw to the sidelines. One of the reason's I'm not a fan, he puts a serious damper on your ability to use the whole field and open up your offense.

I mean I see JGs chart and think of Brady with the Pats for 20 years. I bet that looks similar to Bradys which makes sense for a guy developed by the same system.

 

[Cellar-Door]

You are mistaking that for volume, this is not volume its efficiency. Brady was elite on basically all throws. That chart isn't sho that Jimmy G doesn't throw outside it shows that when he throws outside he sucks at it

 

[EL Jeffe]

I think Evan Lazar Tweeted a similar thought, but since the Stafford trade, I'm starting to lean towards running it back with Cam. I know nobody is going to be excited about another year of Cam, but it might be the best of some bad options. There's also a case to be made that there's still some genuine upside left in bringing him back.

• Continuity. When you look at 2020, the teams with coaching & QB continuity had the most success. (The obvious exception being Tampa, but I'd argue that TB12 being by far the most experienced & successful QB in the history of football makes their continuity angle irrelevant.) There are plenty of reasons why continuity was so important, but I think one of the key drivers was the overall lack of on-field practice time. Between canceled minicamps & OTAs, and training camp protocols/no preseason games or scrimmages, teams that didn't have to worry about teaching had a distinct advantage. Cam was brought in so late and essentially had to learn everything on the fly, as McDaniels was tweaking the system to incorporate Cam's strengths & limitations, in turn forcing the rest of the offensive personnel to also learn it on the fly. That's a lot of learning/teaching without the benefit of normal practice reps.
• COVID. It's sounding like minicamps and OTAs might be shelved again in 2021. If that's the case, you're going to have the whole continuity problem again. With Cam, you've already laid the foundation that you can begin to expand on since he already knows the basic system and terminology (as do the returning players). If you bring in a different bridge like Fitzpatrick, Winston, etc., you have to start everything from scratch again. Jimmy would be an exception, but it doesn't sound like SF is planning on moving on from him.
• Cost. He should be a cheap option for a starting QB. There's not going to be much demand; you could see him possibly being a fallback option for IND and WFT, which opens the door for NE to pounce quickly to get a fair deal done. I'm sure neither side here wants a repeat of a late offseason signing. If you're going to use a bridge QB, you might as well use a cheap one. Cam should be cheap.
• Ability. This is the million dollar question; is Cam washed? The optimist says look at all the things that were working against Cam in 2020: both from the off-field perspective but also the overall on-field talent he was working with. If you can add two legitimate starting WRs and any TE with a pulse, does the passing attack begin to resemble a real NFL offense? They went 7-9 with as bad of a WR/TE corps that I can ever remember. Matt Chatham rants aside, how could the offense not improve with some legit targets that defenses have to actually respect? They've got the cap space to add real targets--particularly if they go cheap at QB. They can go from the worst WR & TE rooms in the league to at least average ones. If Cam still can't get it done with a much better supporting cast, then you move on without impacting your cap.

I get it; we all lived through the 2020 Cam Experience. I was excited when they signed him and I won't be excited if they bring him back; but it still might be the best team building option.

 

[jsinger121]

I think Evan Lazar Tweeted a similar thought, but since the Stafford trade, I'm starting to lean towards running it back with Cam. I know nobody is going to be excited about another year of Cam, but it might be the best of some bad options. There's also a case to be made that there's still some genuine upside left in bringing him back.

• Continuity. When you look at 2020, the teams with coaching & QB continuity had the most success. (The obvious exception being Tampa, but I'd argue that TB12 being by far the most experienced & successful QB in the history of football makes their continuity angle irrelevant.) There are plenty of reasons why continuity was so important, but I think one of the key drivers was the overall lack of on-field practice time. Between canceled minicamps & OTAs, and training camp protocols/no preseason games or scrimmages, teams that didn't have to worry about teaching had a distinct advantage. Cam was brought in so late and essentially had to learn everything on the fly, as McDaniels was tweaking the system to incorporate Cam's strengths & limitations, in turn forcing the rest of the offensive personnel to also learn it on the fly. That's a lot of learning/teaching without the benefit of normal practice reps.
• COVID. It's sounding like minicamps and OTAs might be shelved again in 2021. If that's the case, you're going to have the whole continuity problem again. With Cam, you've already laid the foundation that you can begin to expand on since he already knows the basic system and terminology (as do the returning players). If you bring in a different bridge like Fitzpatrick, Winston, etc., you have to start everything from scratch again. Jimmy would be an exception, but it doesn't sound like SF is planning on moving on from him.
• Cost. He should be a cheap option for a starting QB. There's not going to be much demand; you could see him possibly being a fallback option for IND and WFT, which opens the door for NE to pounce quickly to get a fair deal done. I'm sure neither side here wants a repeat of a late offseason signing. If you're going to use a bridge QB, you might as well use a cheap one. Cam should be cheap.
• Ability. This is the million dollar question; is Cam washed? The optimist says look at all the things that were working against Cam in 2020: both from the off-field perspective but also the overall on-field talent he was working with. If you can add two legitimate starting WRs and any TE with a pulse, does the passing attack begin to resemble a real NFL offense? They went 7-9 with as bad of a WR/TE corps that I can ever remember. Matt Chatham rants aside, how could the offense not improve with some legit targets that defenses have to actually respect? They've got the cap space to add real targets--particularly if they go cheap at QB. They can go from the worst WR & TE rooms in the league to at least average ones. If Cam still can't get it done with a much better supporting cast, then you move on without impacting your cap.

I get it; we all lived through the 2020 Cam Experience. I was excited when they signed him and I won't be excited if they bring him back; but it still might be the best team building option.

There is no reason to bring cam back. He’s washed. I rather go with Brian hoyer or Stidham and go 3-13 than sit through another 7-9 to 6-10 Cam Newton experience again.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I think Evan Lazar Tweeted a similar thought, but since the Stafford trade, I'm starting to lean towards running it back with Cam. I know nobody is going to be excited about another year of Cam, but it might be the best of some bad options. There's also a case to be made that there's still some genuine upside left in bringing him back.

• Continuity. When you look at 2020, the teams with coaching & QB continuity had the most success. (The obvious exception being Tampa, but I'd argue that TB12 being by far the most experienced & successful QB in the history of football makes their continuity angle irrelevant.) There are plenty of reasons why continuity was so important, but I think one of the key drivers was the overall lack of on-field practice time. Between canceled minicamps & OTAs, and training camp protocols/no preseason games or scrimmages, teams that didn't have to worry about teaching had a distinct advantage. Cam was brought in so late and essentially had to learn everything on the fly, as McDaniels was tweaking the system to incorporate Cam's strengths & limitations, in turn forcing the rest of the offensive personnel to also learn it on the fly. That's a lot of learning/teaching without the benefit of normal practice reps.
• COVID. It's sounding like minicamps and OTAs might be shelved again in 2021. If that's the case, you're going to have the whole continuity problem again. With Cam, you've already laid the foundation that you can begin to expand on since he already knows the basic system and terminology (as do the returning players). If you bring in a different bridge like Fitzpatrick, Winston, etc., you have to start everything from scratch again. Jimmy would be an exception, but it doesn't sound like SF is planning on moving on from him.
• Cost. He should be a cheap option for a starting QB. There's not going to be much demand; you could see him possibly being a fallback option for IND and WFT, which opens the door for NE to pounce quickly to get a fair deal done. I'm sure neither side here wants a repeat of a late offseason signing. If you're going to use a bridge QB, you might as well use a cheap one. Cam should be cheap.
• Ability. This is the million dollar question; is Cam washed? The optimist says look at all the things that were working against Cam in 2020: both from the off-field perspective but also the overall on-field talent he was working with. If you can add two legitimate starting WRs and any TE with a pulse, does the passing attack begin to resemble a real NFL offense? They went 7-9 with as bad of a WR/TE corps that I can ever remember. Matt Chatham rants aside, how could the offense not improve with some legit targets that defenses have to actually respect? They've got the cap space to add real targets--particularly if they go cheap at QB. They can go from the worst WR & TE rooms in the league to at least average ones. If Cam still can't get it done with a much better supporting cast, then you move on without impacting your cap.

I get it; we all lived through the 2020 Cam Experience. I was excited when they signed him and I won't be excited if they bring him back; but it still might be the best team building option.

I think Cam's terribleness got somewhat overrated.

Yes he was bad. Yes some of his throws were hideous, and you need to be sure his shoulder is in decent shape.... on the other hand, his running ability was impressive, and his receiving options were clearly the worst in the league.

If we are drafting a QB in the mid-rounds (like say Newman), I do think Cam back cheap might make some sense. He has a clear skillset, give him some WRs who can get separation, letting him make throws into bigger windows and he might give you above average overall production on the cheap when you add in his rushing ability.

Cam isn't a long term solution, but I do think he could be a better and cheaper bridge option than a lot of FAs/Trade options.
I'm starting to think for example that I'd rather have Cam cheap than Jimmy G on his current contract, or Fitz.

 

[JokersWildJIMED]

There is no reason to bring cam back. He’s washed. I rather go with Brian hoyer or Stidham and go 3-13 than sit through another 7-9 to 6-10 Cam Newton experience again.

This 100x...bringing back Cam is beyond a terrible idea. The Pats had the worst passing offense in the league last year and bringing back the washed up QB is not the answer. Besides, he simply does not fit in this system, and the system remains in tact with Josh. Not sure why Cam would want to come back (other than no other offers, which is highly given how awful he was in 2020).

 

[BigSoxFan]

Per Yahoo, Texans have reportedly stated their Watson starting point:

• 2 #1's
• 2 #2's
• 2 young starters

https://sports.yahoo.com/texans-reportedly-have-hefty-price-in-mind-to-start-deshaun-watson-trade-talks-014418649.html

 

[Cellar-Door]

Per Yahoo, Texans have reportedly stated their Watson starting point:

• 2 #1's
• 2 #2's
• 2 young starters

https://sports.yahoo.com/texans-reportedly-have-hefty-price-in-mind-to-start-deshaun-watson-trade-talks-014418649.html

That's pretty reasonable.

 

[BigSoxFan]

That's pretty reasonable.

Yup. Which is why the bidding will drive it up. I would jump right on that price, if I were the Pats.