Pats QB Options

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,294
around the way
Perhaps I am mis-reading you, but it sounds as if you are saying the Patriots have too many holes to fill to give up that much in a trade. I think being confidently set at QB is worth almost anything.
It isn't.

This team is not devoid of talent. In fact they're set in a couple of areas. But they're a handful of starters away from the playoffs, not including QB. Watson going 8-8 on this team isn't what any of us wants. And if we have to give up multiple high picks and starters, that's what you're going to get.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,423
Just swap out Cam for Watson and keep everything else the same. How many more wins is Watson worth than Cam? Surely more than one.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
This team is not devoid of talent. In fact they're set in a couple of areas. But they're a handful of starters away from the playoffs, not including QB. Watson going 8-8 on this team isn't what any of us wants. And if we have to give up multiple high picks and starters, that's what you're going to get.
If Watson joins the team you will get some ring-chasers joining too, and they will obviously be signing/trading other players so to suggest that if the Pats got Watson they wouldn't make any other moves is just wrong.

That said, I actually agree with your larger point that they probably aren't SB contenders next year with Watson. But they probably are a playoff team with some upside, and anyway if you are making this kind of trade you aren't looking just at next year - you are looking at minimum at the remainder of his contract (through 2025) and ideally for the remainder of his career. Which is precisely why his asking price is so high.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,738
Just swap out Cam for Watson and keep everything else the same. How many more wins is Watson worth than Cam? Surely more than one.
Also, you can add in the return from opt-out of LaCosse at TE ;)

More seriously, Cam can be a terrific teammate/big brother/leader/advisor/etc., but his diminished throwing ability will limit the growth and development of pass catchers. Cam's strong mentorship of N'Keal Harry didn't prevent him from descending the depth chart at WR.

Cam is a poor fit at QB in an era of the NFL where offensive linemen are no longer being flagged for holding on passing downs. Total offensive holding penalties were 732 in 2019 and 474 in 2020. On average, teams scored 8% more points/game in 2020 than in 2019, while the points/game number for the Pats declined 20% for this period. This more lenient officiating regime in 2020 should be kept in mind when looking at Brady's stats from 2019.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,723
People are really going over the top about the lack of talent on this team. It won 7 games last year with bad QB play, a league high in opt-outs and a bunch of dead cap. They need to upgrade WR and get more athletic on defense but outside QB and RB this roster is still quite good.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,764
People are really going over the top about the lack of talent on this team. It won 7 games last year with bad QB play, a league high in opt-outs and a bunch of dead cap. They need to upgrade WR and get more athletic on defense but outside QB and RB this roster is still quite good.
The wide receivers stink, the tight ends stink, they have no QB, the front seven is terrible. BB coached this team up to 7 wins. Put any other coach on this team and they win 4 games max. They aren’t that good.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,723
The wide receivers stink, the tight ends stink, they have no QB, the front seven is terrible. BB coached this team up to 7 wins. Put any other coach on this team and they win 4 games max. They aren’t that good.
Even if we take that as true..... Guess who our coach is next year? And they get back their best LB, a bunch of cap space etc.

Almost every team has weaknesses that's how a salary cap league works.

Edit- seems like one key for the "no talent" crowd is the idea that Bill was worth 2-4 wins.... If that's the case wouldn't you want a non-rebuild to maximize his remaining years?
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
13,020
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Even if we take that as true..... Guess who our coach is next year? And they get back their best LB, a bunch of cap space etc.

Almost every team has weaknesses that's how a salary cap league works.

Edit- seems like one key for the "no talent" crowd is the idea that Bill was worth 2-4 wins.... If that's the case wouldn't you want a non-rebuild to maximize his remaining years?
No, because while I'm confident he could take an okay to above average team to a playoff appearance or even a playoff win, you need more than that to win a title. And I don't think they can put together a very talented, Super Bowl contending team in the short term. Now, the whole equation changes if they can get Watson because a top tier QB can transform an average team into a contender overnight, especially with Bill, but if they're not getting him I want a rebuild.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,858
Santa Monica, CA
People are really going over the top about the lack of talent on this team. It won 7 games last year with bad QB play, a league high in opt-outs and a bunch of dead cap. They need to upgrade WR and get more athletic on defense but outside QB and RB this roster is still quite good.
RB is one of like three positions on the team that is actually fine.

WR, TE, DL, LB...not so much.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,723
No, because while I'm confident he could take an okay to above average team to a playoff appearance or even a playoff win, you need more than that to win a title. And I don't think they can put together a very talented, Super Bowl contending team in the short term. Now, the whole equation changes if they can get Watson because a top tier QB can transform an average team into a contender overnight, especially with Bill, but if they're not getting him I want a rebuild.
Here's the problem... If last year was a 4 win talent team...... How do you tank if your coach is worth 3-4 wins? Its why if you can add Watson you do,.... This team doesn't have a clear path to being REALLY bad. Also we all now know Bill isn't going to tank, if he was this was the year for it, opt-out gutted roster, cap hits for players not here, Covid etc. Also if you believe in your coach you try to get to the playoffs and see what happens.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Here's the problem... If last year was a 4 win talent team...... How do you tank if your coach is worth 3-4 wins? Its why if you can add Watson you do,.... This team doesn't have a clear path to being REALLY bad. Also we all now know Bill isn't going to tank, if he was this was the year for it, opt-out gutted roster, cap hits for players not here, Covid etc. Also if you believe in your coach you try to get to the playoffs and see what happens.
Excellent point.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,423
People have been saying that the Patriots aren't really that talented for....basically the entire dynastic run. When were they ever considered to be the most talented team in the league?* They always seem to go up against teams with more "talent" and come away victorious. Somehow. Now a big part of that is the coaching. And a big part of that is that they were uber-talented at....the QB position.

Well guess what? If they got Watson...suddenly they'd be uber-talented at the QB position again.


*One way that critics have always measured this (whether this is dumb or not) is by the number of pro-bowlers on the team. Here's the Pats from 2001-2018, year by year, # of pro-bowlers (and which team had the most):

2001: NE 4 (Phi 8, Den 7) - Pats went 11-5, won the SB
2002: NE 6 (Phi 10, TB 7)
2003: NE 3 (KC 9, Bal 8) - Pats went 14-2, won the SB
2004: NE 6 (Phi 9, Pit 9) - Pats went 14-2, won the SB
2005: NE 2 (Ind 8, Sea 7)
2006: NE 2 (SD 11, Chi 8)
2007: NE 8 (Dal 13, SD 8) - Pats had an undefeated regular season, went to the SB
2008: NE 2 (Ten 8, NYG 7)
2009: NE 5 (Dal 9, Phi 9)
2010: NE 8 (Atl 9)
2011: NE 8 (SF 9, Bal 8) - Pats went 13-3, went to the SB
2012: NE 7 (Hou 9, SF 9)
2013: NE 5 (KC 10, SF 9)
2014: NE 5 (Den 11, Ind 7) - Pats went 12-4, won the SB
2015: NE 7 (Car 10, Cin 8)
2016: NE 4 (Sea 7, KC 7, Bal 7) - Pats went 14-2, won the SB
2017: NE 4 (Pit 10, LAR 8) - Pats went 13-3, went to the SB
2018: NE 2 (Chi 8, Pit 8) - Pats went 11-5, won the SB

At no point ever during this unbelievable run did the Pats have the most pro-bowl players. Even when they had an undefeated regular season. At no point were the Pats considered to be the team with the "most talent". I mean...

- 2003 - They finished with the best record in the league. Dominated the NFL. And only had THREE pro-bowl players.
- 2004 - They finished with the second-best record (Pit went 15-1). Dominated again. Back-to-back championships. Only 6 pro-bowl players.
- 2007 - THEY FREAKING WENT UNDEFEATED. And Dallas had 5 more pro-bowlers, and SD, who only (compared to the Pats) went 11-5, had the same number of pro-bowlers as NE.
- 2014 - They are the #1 seed in the AFC, win the SB, and they have less than HALF the number of pro-bowlers as Denver?
- 2016 - They go 14-2 and dominate the league, winning another SB, and they have barely half the number of pro-bowlers as Seattle, KC, and Baltimore?
- 2017 - They lose the SB but go 13-3, finish with the #1 seed again, and Pittsburgh has SIX more pro-bowlers than NE.
- 2018 - Not the best regular season for NE, but still...11-5 and they only have TWO pro-bowlers.

You get the point. At no point during their 18-year dynasty did people consider the Patriots to have the most talented team. Not once. Never. But they had BB and TB. Well, they don't have TB anymore, but they still have BB, and that counts for a lot.

(And yes, I know that winning the SB isn't factored into who makes the pro-bowl....just making the point that those years they were the best team in the league and weren't considered to be THAT talented.)
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,420
Los Angeles, CA
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.
Hey, one more upside to add to your COVID category is that he should be immune (at least to current strains)!

But seriously, a hard NO on Cam please. I've seen enough of his bounce passes, tipped balls, and never being able to throw the ball away before getting sacked.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,371
CA
If Watson joins the team you will get some ring-chasers joining too, and they will obviously be signing/trading other players so to suggest that if the Pats got Watson they wouldn't make any other moves is just wrong.
I think this angle of a potential Watson deal is being underplayed. As much as the Patriots didn’t pursue elite FAs during Brady’s tenure, they got a lot of players who wanted to come play with them purely because of Brady always giving them a chance to compete for a SB.

I am in the camp of you do what you gotta do to get an all-world talent at QB in today’s NFL. I mean, the Patriots had two 1sts, a 3rd, and a 4th rounder taken from them penalties the last years and have picked at the bottom of the draft almost every year (and have undrafted players make the team and contribute almost every year).

I’m more reticent to give up Wino, Uche, or Dugger who all seem like studs who clearly have adapted to the BB system well than draft picks frankly.

Either way, I would do 3 1st rounders or 2 1sts and 2 2nds for Watson. Get it done.
 

Rico Guapo

New Member
Apr 24, 2009
2,214
New England's Rising Star
The wide receivers stink, the tight ends stink, they have no QB, the front seven is terrible. BB coached this team up to 7 wins. Put any other coach on this team and they win 4 games max. They aren’t that good.
I think the bolded is pretty harsh, we don't really know what we have yet with the recently drafted TEs and while the DL is bad I think they've got a decent LB group with Hightower back in the mix.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,724
Worcester
I think the bolded is pretty harsh, we don't really know what we have yet with the recently drafted TEs and while the DL is bad I think they've got a decent LB group with Hightower back in the mix.
Agreed. Judging the NE TE's on one year (with injuries) with no offseason as "stink[ing]" is harsh. I think it has been said on this board how TE is one of the hardest positions to come into and make an impact as a rookie- needing to learn all the blocking schemes plus the entire route tree. Add no offseason and limited practices, I'd be glad to take this redshirt year for Asi and Keene. Others views may vary...
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
2,394
I would drive Winovich to the airport and pay for his ticket if he was a key cog in a Watson trade. There really might not be two players on the roster whose combined talent and contract combo puts them off limits here. I think there are plenty of reasons it won't happen, but if the NE '21 1-2 '22 1-2 and two defensive players would get it done I wouldn't think twice.
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,489
People have been saying that the Patriots aren't really that talented for....basically the entire dynastic run. When were they ever considered to be the most talented team in the league?* They always seem to go up against teams with more "talent" and come away victorious. Somehow. Now a big part of that is the coaching. And a big part of that is that they were uber-talented at....the QB position.

Well guess what? If they got Watson...suddenly they'd be uber-talented at the QB position again.


*One way that critics have always measured this (whether this is dumb or not) is by the number of pro-bowlers on the team. Here's the Pats from 2001-2018, year by year, # of pro-bowlers (and which team had the most):

2001: NE 4 (Phi 8, Den 7) - Pats went 11-5, won the SB
2002: NE 6 (Phi 10, TB 7)
2003: NE 3 (KC 9, Bal 8) - Pats went 14-2, won the SB
2004: NE 6 (Phi 9, Pit 9) - Pats went 14-2, won the SB
2005: NE 2 (Ind 8, Sea 7)
2006: NE 2 (SD 11, Chi 8)
2007: NE 8 (Dal 13, SD 8) - Pats had an undefeated regular season, went to the SB
2008: NE 2 (Ten 8, NYG 7)
2009: NE 5 (Dal 9, Phi 9)
2010: NE 8 (Atl 9)
2011: NE 8 (SF 9, Bal 8) - Pats went 13-3, went to the SB
2012: NE 7 (Hou 9, SF 9)
2013: NE 5 (KC 10, SF 9)
2014: NE 5 (Den 11, Ind 7) - Pats went 12-4, won the SB
2015: NE 7 (Car 10, Cin 8)
2016: NE 4 (Sea 7, KC 7, Bal 7) - Pats went 14-2, won the SB
2017: NE 4 (Pit 10, LAR 8) - Pats went 13-3, went to the SB
2018: NE 2 (Chi 8, Pit 8) - Pats went 11-5, won the SB

At no point ever during this unbelievable run did the Pats have the most pro-bowl players. Even when they had an undefeated regular season. At no point were the Pats considered to be the team with the "most talent". I mean...

- 2003 - They finished with the best record in the league. Dominated the NFL. And only had THREE pro-bowl players.
- 2004 - They finished with the second-best record (Pit went 15-1). Dominated again. Back-to-back championships. Only 6 pro-bowl players.
- 2007 - THEY FREAKING WENT UNDEFEATED. And Dallas had 5 more pro-bowlers, and SD, who only (compared to the Pats) went 11-5, had the same number of pro-bowlers as NE.
- 2014 - They are the #1 seed in the AFC, win the SB, and they have less than HALF the number of pro-bowlers as Denver?
- 2016 - They go 14-2 and dominate the league, winning another SB, and they have barely half the number of pro-bowlers as Seattle, KC, and Baltimore?
- 2017 - They lose the SB but go 13-3, finish with the #1 seed again, and Pittsburgh has SIX more pro-bowlers than NE.
- 2018 - Not the best regular season for NE, but still...11-5 and they only have TWO pro-bowlers.

You get the point. At no point during their 18-year dynasty did people consider the Patriots to have the most talented team. Not once. Never. But they had BB and TB. Well, they don't have TB anymore, but they still have BB, and that counts for a lot.

(And yes, I know that winning the SB isn't factored into who makes the pro-bowl....just making the point that those years they were the best team in the league and weren't considered to be THAT talented.)
The Pats have usually not historically relied on tons of top end talent away from the QB position, but the concern here isn't a lack of Pro Bowlers, it's a lack of anything resembling depth. PFF isn't gospel, but for some context, the Pats had only 15 players rank in the top half of all players at their position (8 offense, 7 defense). Of the 8 on offense that included 5 offensive linemen (one of whom in Thuney is not likely to be back next year) and 2 RBs (including Burkhead who lacks 2 functioning knees). On defense, of the 7, Wise and Guy are UFA, Jackson is an RFA, and Gilmore is coming off injury. There are holes all over the roster away from OL, the secondary (assuming Gilmore is back and the McCourty twins don't retire), and maybe RB (if you feel OK about Michel's knee and think Harris/Michel can do enough in the passing game to replace White's role). WR and TE are a dumpster fire. The front 7 has at best 3 guys you'd feel comfortable going into the year with as starters (Hightower, Wino, Uche). Oh, and they still don't have a QB.

edit: clarity
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,723
The Pats have usually not historically relied on tons of top end talent away from the QB position, but the concern here isn't a lack of Pro Bowlers, it's a lack of anything resembling depth. PFF isn't gospel, but for some context, on offense the 2020 Pats had only 15 players rank in the top half of all players at their position. Of the 8 on offense that included 5 offensive linemen (one of whom in Thuney is not likely to be back next year) and 2 RBs (including Burkhead who lacks 2 functioning knees). On defense, of the 7, Wise and Guy are UFA, Jackson is an RFA, and Gilmore is coming off injury. There are holes all over the roster away from OL, the secondary (assuming Gilmore is back and the McCourty twins don't retire), and maybe RB (if you feel OK about Michel's knee and think Harris/Michel can do enough in the passing game to replace White's role). WR and TE are a dumpster fire. The front 7 has at best 3 guys you'd feel comfortable going into the year with as starters (Hightower, Wino, Uche). Oh, and they still don't have a QB.
Well yeah, but they also have the 4th most cap space in the league (and closer to 1st than 5th), even without trying to cut, restructure or extend.
Looking at it another way....
The should have one of the better offensive lines in the league, and one of the best secondaries in the league and they have a TON of money to spend on the rest. Not many teams are in a better position than that.
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,489
Well yeah, but they also have the 4th most cap space in the league (and closer to 1st than 5th), even without trying to cut, restructure or extend.
Looking at it another way....
The should have one of the better offensive lines in the league, and one of the best secondaries in the league and they have a TON of money to spend on the rest. Not many teams are in a better position than that.
They're projected to have about $44mn in cap room assuming 2021 comes in around $180mn. Based on their current picks, rookies will take up about $10 million, so that leaves $34mn. Even a lower end QB like a FItzpatrick probably costs in the $5-8 million range. Call it $6 million and that takes them down to $28 million. Re-sign Andrews to maintain OL continuity and they are down to low-20s pretty quick. Yes, the Pats have some cap space and there will definitely be some free agent values to be had, but we shouldn't be putting our hopes on free agency to rebuild multiple position groups.
 

splendid splinter

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
1,085
Greenville, SC
I don’t know that I’d want Cam back again, but how many of his issues do people think are “fixable”? Because I don’t think they had an opportunity to address those last season. Coming in cold, with limited camps and no preseason, I assume the emphasis with him was 100% on installing the offense. They couldn’t break down and rebuild his form while trying to do that, not with so little time to prepare for the season. Learning the playbook and practicing it was far more important, and had to take precedence over addressing any fundamental footwork or throwing issues he had - they’d probably have completely broken him if they’d tried to do both. With a full offseason, camps and preseason to work with him, its possible they could turn him into a much more capable passer.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,062
Mansfield MA
I think the bolded is pretty harsh, we don't really know what we have yet with the recently drafted TEs and while the DL is bad I think they've got a decent LB group with Hightower back in the mix.
We don't know what we have yet with the TEs, true, but it's also fair to say none of the TEs on the roster have done anything in the NFL and should be considered suspect until proven otherwise. And I liked both Asiasi and Keene coming out of school.

The DL is a total mess. I'm not as bullish on the LBs, as a) we don't know if Hightower is going to be back (he might retire; he also has a high cap hit), b) we don't know how he'll play with a year off c) the other off-LB aren't good and don't complement him well.

I don't mean to be doom and gloom, but I think 2021 is going to be tough. The best offensive player last year was Thuney, and he's a free agent; so is Andrews. The OL was great last year but it's going to take investment to keep it that way. The other really good unit was the secondary, but Gilmore is on his last year and may not want to play on his cap figure; he's also over 30. DMac is even older and on the last year of his deal. JC Jackson is a RFA. I just think they've reached an inflection point where they have little young / prime talent locked up and it's going to be challenging to keep their strengths together while plugging the holes (which may mean they do decide just to roll out the young guys at TE and hope it works out, because they don't have a lot of assets to add to it).

This is where I stand as well. I just want a guy who can run an NFL offense. Seems like every big Cam completion came off play action to a wide open receiver down the middle of the field, whenever he was asked to just drop back and play traditional QB he couldn't really cut it.
I don't think the numbers back this up. Cam's best games - Seattle, Houston, the first Jets game - were all contests where they fell behind and he had to throw a lot when the defenses knew he would throw.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,423
They're projected to have about $44mn in cap room assuming 2021 comes in around $180mn. Based on their current picks, rookies will take up about $10 million, so that leaves $34mn. Even a lower end QB like a FItzpatrick probably costs in the $5-8 million range. Call it $6 million and that takes them down to $28 million. Re-sign Andrews to maintain OL continuity and they are down to low-20s pretty quick. Yes, the Pats have some cap space and there will definitely be some free agent values to be had, but we shouldn't be putting our hopes on free agency to rebuild multiple position groups.
If you're down to the low 20s, but you've adequately addressed QB and OL, set aside $14m for a WR1, which is your next biggest need, and with the other $8-10m you can get a couple of solid (not spectacular, but solid) vets to plug in at DL and LB. And I'm sure they can create more cap space by fiddling with existing contracts. So yes, with their cap space, they ought to be able to address QB, OL, DL, WR, and LB.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,294
around the way
They're projected to have about $44mn in cap room assuming 2021 comes in around $180mn. Based on their current picks, rookies will take up about $10 million, so that leaves $34mn. Even a lower end QB like a FItzpatrick probably costs in the $5-8 million range. Call it $6 million and that takes them down to $28 million. Re-sign Andrews to maintain OL continuity and they are down to low-20s pretty quick. Yes, the Pats have some cap space and there will definitely be some free agent values to be had, but we shouldn't be putting our hopes on free agency to rebuild multiple position groups.
Great points about depth above. Pats teams have traditionally run deep on "middle class" players rather than top-heavy on stars and weak everywhere else.

Last year the OL and secondary were standout units. Nowhere else really was. There is a lot of rebuild to do. It would be lovely if Bill grabs a bunch of FA gold nuggets, but locking up a huge chunk of the cap space with a high end QB and giving away tons of draft capital for the right to do it seems like an odd approach to solving the current roster problems.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,321
UWS, NYC
Updated the list in the original post, including adding Derek Carr in there as a potential trade candidate. Could imagine them moving Carr for cap relief and rolling Mariota out there, drafting a developmental prospect this year.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,918
St. Louis, MO
Updated the list in the original post, including adding Derek Carr in there as a potential trade candidate. Could imagine them moving Carr for cap relief and rolling Mariota out there, drafting a developmental prospect this year.
If they move Carr it’s to flip the picks for Watson.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
33,441
Updated the list in the original post, including adding Derek Carr in there as a potential trade candidate. Could imagine them moving Carr for cap relief and rolling Mariota out there, drafting a developmental prospect this year.
Carr is a religion bro so maybe he is a fit in Houston.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,832
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Lots of rumblings from nobodies on Twitter that the Pats want Cam back.

Probably nothing more than chatter, but I will say, if they go with Cam again, I'm not planning a single event around Pats games. That offense was embarrassingly bad and not fun to watch last year.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,764
Lots of rumblings from nobodies on Twitter that the Pats want Cam back.

Probably nothing more than chatter, but I will say, if they go with Cam again, I'm not planning a single event around Pats games. That offense was embarrassingly bad and not fun to watch last year.
if they go with cam again, Kraft should put BB on notice. Going 6-10/7-9 with no plan at QB is unacceptable. I can tolerate a 6-10/7-9 if they actually had a QB in place I can get behind.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,723
if they go with cam again, Kraft should put BB on notice. Going 6-10/7-9 with no plan at QB is unacceptable. I can tolerate a 6-10/7-9 if they actually had a QB in place I can get behind.
LOL, yes, Kraft should definitely put the best coach in the history of the sport on notice because some messageboarders are upset he went with Cam over Jimmy G.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,764
Then move up in the draft for a QB even if you have to lose future draft capital. I’d rather have a young QB in place with upside than go with the corpse of Cam Newton for another season. BB needs to realize that QB is the most important position in the NFL and can’t continue to punt on the position and get cheap crappy options. It’s not how the NFL works anymore. To win in the league you pretty much need a top tier to elite QB.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,723
Then move up in the draft for a QB even if you have to lose future draft capital. I’d rather have a young QB in place with upside than go with the corpse of Cam Newton for another season. BB needs to realize that QB is the most important position in the NFL and can’t continue to punt on the position and get cheap crappy options. It’s not how the NFL works anymore. To win in the league you pretty much need a top tier to elite QB.
Bringing back Cam would not in any way preclude drafting a QB. Though the idea that "you can just move up for a QB" is so flawed it shouldn't be taken seriously....
1. Which QB
2. Move up how, with what picks, in a trade with what team that wants to trade down?
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
91,875
Oregon
... and we don't even know if Jimmy G is available. There may not be much out there.
This offseason is musical chairs for available starting quarterbacks. As it stands, the Colts, the WFT, the Jags (and we know where they're going) and the Patriots are "without" what you'd call a starter.

Now there are several teams with serious question marks, like the Bears and (depending on what you think of Hill) the Saints. But even the Jets, Broncos and Panthers (among those rumored to have asked about Stafford or Watson) have guys who would start if the season began tomorrow.

As SN says, there isn't much out there trade-wise beyond JG. Is Fitzmagic the best FA out there? At some point, Cam becomes a logical piece to fill a role.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,858
Santa Monica, CA
Cam was one of the worst quarterbacks in the league last year. Especially with several new, promising QB's entering via the draft, it shouldn't be too much to ask to improve at least a bit at the position, and not tread water. I am confident Belichick will not run back out there with Cam Newton at QB (at least not by choice).
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,423
It wouldn't take very much to improve on Cam. Let's be brutally honest here. Even a modest improvement shouldn't be that difficult at all.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
It wouldn't take very much to improve on Cam. Let's be brutally honest here. Even a modest improvement shouldn't be that difficult at all.
Certainly not but I guess it depends whether BB thinks a "modest improvement" at QB would be enough to turn them into contenders. If not, I can see a scenario where he doesn't think acquiring Jimmy G or Jameis Winston or whatever is worth it and the Pats are better off keeping their powder dry for future seasons while improving other positions like WR, TE, various defensive spots, etc.

And yeah they can of course draft a QB early but it's obvious from past history that Belichick is not going to reach for a QB just because there is a "need" for one. As an example let's say that the Pats see Lawrence, Fields, and Wilson as the clear top QBs in the draft and everyone else a significant step down from that. If those QBs all go in the top 5 picks or whatever, BB isn't going to just settle for Mac Jones or somebody - he's presumably going to draft a potential stud at one of the many other positions of need.

Put another way the "we absolutely have to improve at QB this year" approach would make sense if they were just a QB away from contention, but I'm not sure that's the case given the holes they need to fill elsewhere (unless that QB is Watson or some other star that somehow becomes available).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,723
It wouldn't take very much to improve on Cam. Let's be brutally honest here. Even a modest improvement shouldn't be that difficult at all.
Maybe?
Of course the question is... how much improvement costs what? And additionally, do they think Cam 2021-2022 is an improvement on Cam 2020-2021, because that's part of it. You look at Carolina who said.... "we're done with Cam, lets bring in Teddy Bridgewater on big money, he'll be an improvement on what we got from Cam in 2018-19".... and then he wasn't.

QB play in the bottom half is pretty variable year to year, and is pretty situation, scheme and surrounding talent dependent, there are worse moves than playing a below average QB who makes very little, and that is paying too much for a different below average QB.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,858
Santa Monica, CA
Maybe?
Of course the question is... how much improvement costs what? And additionally, do they think Cam 2021-2022 is an improvement on Cam 2020-2021, because that's part of it. You look at Carolina who said.... "we're done with Cam, lets bring in Teddy Bridgewater on big money, he'll be an improvement on what we got from Cam in 2018-19".... and then he wasn't.

QB play in the bottom half is pretty variable year to year, and is pretty situation, scheme and surrounding talent dependent, there are worse moves than playing a below average QB who makes very little, and that is paying too much for a different below average QB.
Bridgewater wasn't great, but he was absolutely an improvement over what the Panthers got from Cam the prior two years (also over what the Pats got from Cam this year).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,723
Bridgewater wasn't great, but he was absolutely an improvement over what the Panthers got from Cam the prior two years (also over what the Pats got from Cam this year).
Was it? The stats don't really back up the idea that Bridgewater was any better than when Cam was there for 2018-19 (I'm not counting the 1.5 games in 2019-20).

Bridge.... 69.1%, 15 TD, 11 INT, 6.37 ANY/A, 92.1 Rtg
Cam........67.9%, 24 TD, 13 INT, 6.15 ANY/A, 94.2 Rtg

Anv........ ANY/A+...............CMP%+............INT%+..........TD%+.........Rate+
Bridge.. 101......................121..................100.............85.................100
Cam......100........................117..................93..............107...............105


The point was if he was better (dubious) it was not by anywhere near enough to be worth what they paid. Same as the Bortles to Foles move, or the Trubisky to Foles move.

Paying to replace your poor performer with a similarly poor QB is much worse than doing nothing.

If they can replace Cam with a good QB... they should. If they're going to pay far more hoping for a "modest increase" as the post I quoted suggested, they are much better off bringing back Cam.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,062
Mansfield MA
Was it? The stats don't really back up the idea that Bridgewater was any better than when Cam was there for 2018-19 (I'm not counting the 1.5 games in 2019-20).

Bridge.... 69.1%, 15 TD, 11 INT, 6.37 ANY/A, 92.1 Rtg
Cam........67.9%, 24 TD, 13 INT, 6.15 ANY/A, 94.2 Rtg

Anv........ ANY/A+...............CMP%+............INT%+..........TD%+.........Rate+
Bridge.. 101......................121..................100.............85.................100
Cam......100........................117..................93..............107...............105


The point was if he was better (dubious) it was not by anywhere near enough to be worth what they paid. Same as the Bortles to Foles move, or the Trubisky to Foles move.

Paying to replace your poor performer with a similarly poor QB is much worse than doing nothing.

If they can replace Cam with a good QB... they should. If they're going to pay far more hoping for a "modest increase" as the post I quoted suggested, they are much better off bringing back Cam.
And the overall offense was much better in Carolina in 2018 (14th in total scoring, 11th in points per drive) than in 2020 (24th in scoring, 20th in points per drive), and they won two more games in 2018. So I'm not seeing @Captaincoop 's point, either.
 

BostonFanInCanesLand

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 16, 2011
2,061
As much as fans dig the long ball it seems ill-advised to have a strong running game and a QB who has poor throwing mechanics and iffy progressions And can only throw deep balls.

I know it is all the rage to bash the Pats for their lack of skill players but I’d like to see a QB who can help the skill players improve over time. One who fails to pull the trigger or throws it at their feet is sub-optimal.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,739
Is it really a problem if BB signs Cam to a non-guaranteed deal to be part of the 90 man roster through spring? There's still room to draft, trade, or sign another QB.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
This maybe should be a poll, but I wonder how people feel about the choice of
  • Mediocre/weak QB (call it ranked 15-25-ish) and strong pass catchers;
  • Stronger QB (call it ranked 8-16-ish) and mediocre pass catchers.
IOW, would you rather the Pats spending money on Godwin, AlRob, Hunter Henry, James White and going with someone like Daniel Jones? Or finding someone like Dad Prescott, and having to find WR's like Marvin Jones or TY Hilton or Mo Alie-Cox?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.