Stink out Loud for Stroud (?)

[dynomite]

I actually agree that even with Hoyer, the Patriots are capable of winning 4 of those 6 games. Not that they WILL, but that they COULD. If Hoyer could minimize turnovers, they run the ball well, and play good defense against what are some pretty limited offensive teams, they could win 4 of those games.

Whether they actually win these games or not -- and for the record, I agree with you although I could see them losing all of those games without Mac -- I think the point stands: Belichick won't declare the season over even if Mac misses the next month of games. I know it's a cliché, but it's a cliché for a reason: he'll start the QB he thinks gives the team the best chance to win.

I assume that would probably be Hoyer, especially at first, who presumably they trust and knows the offense as well as anyone. I imagine they will ask him to protect the ball and complete short passes. If he can't do that, they drafted Zappe and he made the roster for a reason.

It will be ugly football. But we just saw the Patriots beat the Bills -- in Buffalo no less -- last year while throwing 3 (?) passes. Sure, there was so much wind I almost expected Moses to lead the team across the field, but I'm hoping God remains a Patriots fan.

 

[Phil Plantier]

Next week is an auto L. You think they’re capable of winning the next 4 of 5 with Hoyer? No chance. Some of those teams aren’t as bad as you may think.

Pats are +430 vs the Packers. Happy to wager $10 to the Jimmy Fund if they lose to your $43 to the same if they win.

Justin Fields' stat line: 8/17, 106 yards 2 ints, 8 rushes for 47 yards, 5 sacks. In a win.
Do you want to read Flacco's? Ryan's? Hoyer will be a bottom-10 QB, but they can still win with that.

 

[lexrageorge]

Tanking in the NFL, to prosperity it will not lead.

Sure, if the Pats are 2-6 at the trade deadline, I do not expect them to trade draft picks for rental players. But trading away their veteran players for picks is not as easy as it seems due to the league's salary cap rules (which are not "crap" no matter what Felger & Mazz claim). Judon and Smith are essentially untradeable due to their contracts. And the return for an Agholor, Bourne or Myers would not be earth shattering.

Part of me still wishes they missed the playoffs last season, if only because Hard Knocks would have been appointment TV in August. But otherwise I do not expect the Pats to facilitate a tanking, and I am fine with that.

 

[BaseballJones]

Pats are +430 vs the Packers. Happy to wager $10 to the Jimmy Fund if they lose to your $43 to the same if they win.

Justin Fields' stat line: 8/17, 106 yards 2 ints, 8 rushes for 47 yards, 5 sacks. In a win.
Do you want to read Flacco's? Ryan's? Hoyer will be a bottom-10 QB, but they can still win with that.

To this point, here's Russell Wilson's (that's, um, SB-champion and 9x pro bowl QB Russell Wilson) stats in the two games Denver has won this year:

vs Hou (W, 16-9): 14-31, 219 yds, 1 td, 1 int, 3 sacks, 18 yds, 66.5 rating
vs SF (W, 11-10): 20-33, 184 yds, 0 td, 0 int, 4 sacks, 24 yds, 75.8 rating

 

[BigSoxFan]

Pats are +430 vs the Packers. Happy to wager $10 to the Jimmy Fund if they lose to your $43 to the same if they win.

Justin Fields' stat line: 8/17, 106 yards 2 ints, 8 rushes for 47 yards, 5 sacks. In a win.
Do you want to read Flacco's? Ryan's? Hoyer will be a bottom-10 QB, but they can still win with that.

Deal.

Flacco won’t be QB when the Pats play the Jets. Possible Wilson will be even worse but that’s probably unlikely. Fields at home is a winnable game. Matt Ryan isn’t lighting the world on fire but Indy has been playing without Leonard and Pittman was banged up last week.

 

[moondog80]

There are things on the margins that might happen, like maybe being a little slower bringing back injured guys if they are 4-10, but I expect nothing less than focusing on development and getting better, no matter what their record is.

 

[Shelterdog]

The playoffs are pretty clearly a longshot so I don't mind making some marginal decisions to give younger players a chance, trade the occasional older guy at the deadline, and make sure you're not rushing back any of your more valuable players from injury, etc. but on the whole I don't think "tanking" is particularly valuable or even a meaningful concept (you're not going to hold Barmore and Judon out with phantom injuries, for example). What you really want to do any season, and particularly this season where the offensive system is being adjusted and there are new coaches, is to develop get in as much work as possible to build the team into cohesive units what will play well in 23 and 24.

 

[Toe Nash]

To this point, here's Russell Wilson's (that's, um, SB-champion and 9x pro bowl QB Russell Wilson) stats in the two games Denver has won this year:

vs Hou (W, 16-9): 14-31, 219 yds, 1 td, 1 int, 3 sacks, 18 yds, 66.5 rating
vs SF (W, 11-10): 20-33, 184 yds, 0 td, 0 int, 4 sacks, 24 yds, 75.8 rating

With Wilson the defense has to respect the deep ball and his scrambling ability (which was key to their game-winning drive last night even if his overall numbers were meh). With Hoyer they do not have to respect anything and will just pile 8+ guys in the box on 1st and 2nd down. It boggles the mind that he is the backup for a team with playoff aspirations.

 

[yecul]

Even without Mac the team is going to win 5-7 games with a competent run game, line, and defense. This isn't a 1-3 win team in any event.

They should go out, try to compete as normal, and see where the chips fall. Let's be honest - even doing that they will still get a good pick even if it's not top ~5. I'm not even sure what tanking would look like in this context. Their hands are tied with the QB situation and that will "help" them getting a better pick.

They will not go 4-2 in the next 6 games. 1 or 2 wins is most likely with 3 as the upside, IMO.

 

[Justthetippett]

I think you gauge the market around the deadline and see if any teams are willing to overpay for a vet; if not, you keep playing your best players in the hopes of some kind of foundation for next year. I am rooting hard for Mac, but he’s going to need a stacked supporting cast to really succeed. That means lots of roster adjustments that can really only be made if you know what team you have at the end of the year.

 

[asimonetti]

I have seen multiple Pats scouts at OSU practice this season. Didn't look like CJS was their focus but I didn't ask.

 

[mauf]

There is no path to relevance with Brian Hoyer/Zappe as your QB. If Mac is out 6-8 weeks, the season is effectively over. Not sure why this position is so controversial. These Patriots WITH Mac weren’t any good. They will suck out loud without him. Nothing wrong with taking the long view. There’s also nothing wrong with not throwing in the towel. We know the coaching staff won’t. But it won’t likely matter if Mac is out an extended period of time.

Tell you what: list out what you think the five best-run NFL teams are, then let me know the last time any of them tanked.

This isn’t the NBA, folks.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Tell you what: list out what you think the five best-run NFL teams are, then let me know the last time any of them tanked.

This isn’t the NBA, folks.

Tell you what: How about I skip your homework assignment and let you know that I wasn’t suggesting that the Patriots should tank? They won’t and there is no real mechanism for doing so in the NFL, as you have so expertly pointed out with your NBA one liner.

What I was suggesting is that the season is effectively over if Mac misses 6-8 weeks because Brian Hoyer is awful so I won’t be too upset with them improving their draft position organically this year vs. trying to scrape and claw their way to relevance. That’s it. That was my position. I don’t expect everyone to agree with that position and some already haven’t, which is totally cool.

 

[nolasoxfan]

What I was suggesting is that the season is effectively over if Mac misses 6-8 weeks because Brian Hoyer is awful so I won’t be too upset with them improving their draft position organically this year vs. trying to scrape and claw their way to relevance. That’s it. That was my position. I don’t expect everyone to agree with that position and some already haven’t, which is totally cool.

I agree with it, FWIW.

 

[Shelterdog]

Tell you what: How about I skip your homework assignment and let you know that I wasn’t suggesting that the Patriots should tank? They won’t and there is no real mechanism for doing so in the NFL, as you have so expertly pointed out with your NBA one liner.

What I was suggesting is that the season is effectively over if Mac misses 6-8 weeks because Brian Hoyer is awful so I won’t be too upset with them improving their draft position organically this year vs. trying to scrape and claw their way to relevance. That’s it. That was my position. I don’t expect everyone to agree with that position and some already haven’t, which is totally cool.

If they happen to pick 8 instead of 18, I'm fine with that but the NFL draft is such a crapshoot that it's hard to know if that would make a difference--18 can be good, 8 a bust, the board might be bad at your positions of need, etc. UNless you're in the Colt's flukish suck fo luck situation it's a pretty pointless endeavor.

 

[BigSoxFan]

If they happen to pick 8 instead of 18, I'm fine with that but the NFL draft is such a crapshoot that it's hard to know if that would make a difference--18 can be good, 8 a bust, the board might be bad at your positions of need, etc. UNless you're in the Colt's flukish suck fo luck situation it's a pretty pointless endeavor.

Yeah, I’m guessing my “taking the long view” line was interpreted as a desire to tank but it really was not intended to be viewed as such. If Mac is out 2 months, and I certainly hope he isn’t, then I think this year is about player development.

But this team needs a lot more than whatever development of guys currently in the fold can bring. They are short on impact guys so I’m perfectly fine with 2023 being a top 10 pick year while cap space is freed up. I puke at the thought of a bridge year for MLB but NFL rebuilds are just tougher and sometimes necessary. In 2021, we were 3 picks away from Micah Parsons. You just never know with the draft. But we do know this team is really lacking on top end talent.

 

[mauf]

Tell you what: How about I skip your homework assignment and let you know that I wasn’t suggesting that the Patriots should tank? They won’t and there is no real mechanism for doing so in the NFL, as you have so expertly pointed out with your NBA one liner.

What I was suggesting is that the season is effectively over if Mac misses 6-8 weeks because Brian Hoyer is awful so I won’t be too upset with them improving their draft position organically this year vs. trying to scrape and claw their way to relevance. That’s it. That was my position. I don’t expect everyone to agree with that position and some already haven’t, which is totally cool.

That came off more snarky than I meant. Sorry about that.

My point is that if you list teams in the NFL who have tanked in the past decade, you end up with the “Suck for Luck” Colts (edit: actually, slight more than 10 years ago), the 0-16 Browns, the Jets two years ago, and maybe the Dolphins their first season under Flores. All are franchises we wouldn’t want to emulate.

 

[BigSoxFan]

That came off more snarky than I meant. Sorry about that.

My point is that if you list teams in the NFL who have tanked in the past decade, you end up with the “Suck for Luck” Colts (edit: actually, slight more than 10 years ago), the 0-16 Browns, the Jets two years ago, and maybe the Dolphins their first season under Flores. All are franchises we wouldn’t want to emulate.

It’s all good. If I’m not mistaken, you’re a fellow BC grad/fan so, if I’m right, we both should be extra ornery today. I know I am given the dire prospects of MA football.

Pats were so damn close to a big win yesterday and instead we got an L and our QB got hurt. Double nut punch L. I don’t expect anything to change with how BB operates this team. Maybe the defense and running game can really carry the show. I’m skeptical but I’ll be rooting as hell for it to happen.

Shit, I don’t even know if Stroud is even that good. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. But you certainly don’t nuke your culture trying to find out. As you have correctly pointed out, you don’t want to join the list of teams you’ve mentioned.

 

[DanoooME]

Yeah, I personally prefer "play like dung for Young", but YMMV for this year's QB class.

 

[E5 Yaz]

2. Make a trade for a guy like Minshew or Heinecke, hoping one of those teams would do it for something late round like a 5th.

I, for one, would love to see the Belichick-Minshew dynamic in action

 

[NortheasternPJ]

If they happen to pick 8 instead of 18, I'm fine with that but the NFL draft is such a crapshoot that it's hard to know if that would make a difference--18 can be good, 8 a bust, the board might be bad at your positions of need, etc. UNless you're in the Colt's flukish suck fo luck situation it's a pretty pointless endeavor.

Agreed and Luck won a total of 4 playoff games out of 8. I get he’s a special situation but they Sucked for Luck, it worked out short term and not long term.

 

[Shelterdog]

Yeah, I’m guessing my “taking the long view” line was interpreted as a desire to tank but it really was not intended to be viewed as such. If Mac is out 2 months, and I certainly hope he isn’t, then I think this year is about player development.

But this team needs a lot more than whatever development of guys currently in the fold can bring. They are short on impact guys so I’m perfectly fine with 2023 being a top 10 pick year while cap space is freed up. I puke at the thought of a bridge year for MLB but NFL rebuilds are just tougher and sometimes necessary. In 2021, we were 3 picks away from Micah Parsons. You just never know with the draft. But we do know this team is really lacking on top end talent.

I think high end talent gets overrated a bit in the NFL--the Pats won a ton of games for 20 years without much of it other than Brady*--but what's more important is having a lot of good or very good players who play great in your system because the coaching staff maximizes their strengths, they feel great about their role, they now how to play within the system without much thought because they've internalized it, etc. Take the Ravens--it certainly helps that they have Jackson who is amazing, but when I look up and down the roster that played yesterday I see a lot of very good players (e.g. Humphreys, Madubuike, Clark, Bynes, even Andrews) who played exceptionally well because of scheme comfort fit etc.



* Seymour and Gronk definite hall of famer top talents yes, they had guys like Revis and Moss for short periods who were great, but how many people in that run were guys who make the hall of fame or multiple all pro appearnces if they played their entire career in Minnesota? On the other hand they had dozens and dozens of very very good players, Matt Lights and Ted Bruschi's and Hightowers and McCourtys and Pattens and Branchs).

 

[BigSoxFan]

I think high end talent gets overrated a bit in the NFL--the Pats won a ton of games for 20 years without much of it other than Brady*--but what's more important is having a lot of good or very good players who play great in your system because the coaching staff maximizes their strengths, they feel great about their role, they now how to play within the system without much thought because they've internalized it, etc. Take the Ravens--it certainly helps that they have Jackson who is amazing, but when I look up and down the roster that played yesterday I see a lot of very good players (e.g. Humphreys, Madubuike, Clark, Bynes, even Andrews) who played exceptionally well because of scheme comfort fit etc.



* Seymour and Gronk definite hall of famer top talents yes, they had guys like Revis and Moss for short periods who were great, but how many people in that run were guys who make the hall of fame or multiple all pro appearnces if they played their entire career in Minnesota? On the other hand they had dozens and dozens of very very good players, Matt Lights and Ted Bruschi's and Hightowers and McCourtys and Pattens and Branchs).

No real disagreement here. Clearly, you need quality throughout and good coaching/scheme. But sometimes you also just need playmakers at key moments in the game. Guys who can go up and get the ball. Guys who can beat a double team. Guys who can make someone miss in the open field. Guys who can get that crucial sack. The last 3 SB champs were chalk full of impact or what I would call “high end” talent. I think we currently fall short in that department. Everything just seems to come harder for the Pats. Our longest run of the year is 18 yards. We actually have had more passing game chunk plays than I was expecting so that is a positive, although we’ll see what Hoyer can do on that front.

 

[Shelterdog]

No real disagreement here. Clearly, you need quality throughout and good coaching/scheme. But sometimes you also just need playmakers at key moments in the game. Guys who can go up and get the ball. Guys who can beat a double team. Guys who can make someone miss in the open field. Guys who can get that crucial sack. The last 3 SB champs were chalk full of impact or what I would call “high end” talent. I think we currently fall short in that department. Everything just seems to come harder for the Pats. Our longest run of the year is 18 yards. We actually have had more passing game chunk plays than I was expecting so that is a positive, although we’ll see what Hoyer can do on that front.

Elite talent is great and you're clearly better off having a Donald than a Wise if you can get a Donald. But big name playmakers don't alone a winner make--the Cowboys have shown us this over and over for 20 years. And there are so many talented players in the NFL that a Ninkovich or Bruschi or even a Malcolm Mitchell can make a lot of those big plays in big spots; you don't need the top pick in the draft to do that. When I look at this year's Pats the problem I see, especially on defense, is that it's a team with more like 15 really good players than the 25 or 30 the teams that end up getting playoff byes, etc usually have.

(As an aside i'd argue that the 2020 Bucs actually had a lot less high end talent given where people like JPP, Gronk and Suh were in their career-those were merely very good players at that point who played great especially in the playoffs).

 

[mcpickl]

Sometimes I think a portion of this board is still stuck in a 2019 "Bill could get Brian Hoyer into the AFCCG" Mike Felger argument. Hoyer would be the worst starting quarterback in all of football, if Belichick can take what is "meh" overall talent and remain competitive with that kind of QB play, he should have never spent the 15th overall pick on Mac Jones, because I'm prety sure 4-2 over that stretch would be a pretty rosy scenario even if he were playing.

He went 7-9 with the worst starting quarterback in all of football two years ago.

It wouldn't surprise me if they stay competitive in that stretch. They may not go 4-2, but they'll probably hang in

 

[slamminsammya]

I think high end talent gets overrated a bit in the NFL--the Pats won a ton of games for 20 years without much of it other than Brady*--but what's more important is having a lot of good or very good players who play great in your system because the coaching staff maximizes their strengths, they feel great about their role, they now how to play within the system without much thought because they've internalized it, etc. Take the Ravens--it certainly helps that they have Jackson who is amazing, but when I look up and down the roster that played yesterday I see a lot of very good players (e.g. Humphreys, Madubuike, Clark, Bynes, even Andrews) who played exceptionally well because of scheme comfort fit etc.



* Seymour and Gronk definite hall of famer top talents yes, they had guys like Revis and Moss for short periods who were great, but how many people in that run were guys who make the hall of fame or multiple all pro appearnces if they played their entire career in Minnesota? On the other hand they had dozens and dozens of very very good players, Matt Lights and Ted Bruschi's and Hightowers and McCourtys and Pattens and Branchs).

I can't tell how I feel about this argument. Having the GOAT at the most important position to me seems to be an argument for needing high end talent. They also had the GOAT TE.

But I do agree it is not sufficient - those teams always had very solid middle classes of players who made key contributions.

 

[Remagellan]

Really? Without Mac, I see MAYBE two wins in that stretch.

Bears, Jets, maybe Colts...

Can't see the Pats beating the Pack in GB. The Lions offense is very good. Probably need to score 28-30 points to beat them; can't see a Hoyer led team doing that. The Browns are loaded at nearly every position but QB, and I'm not sure that Brissett isn't better than Hoyer at this point. Can't see them winning that game either.

 

[Remagellan]

The guy who started in KC two years ago made so many bad decisions in that game I'm not sure how he could lead a team to much of anything.

If they want to compete and Mac is out, they would have two options in my mind.

1. (preferred) - go get Ryan Fitzpatrick out of the Amazon booth.
2. Make a trade for a guy like Minshew or Heinecke, hoping one of those teams would do it for something late round like a 5th.

I think the Eagles are smart enough to know that a team with a QB who runs as much as Hurts does needs to have a good backup, because that team has legitimate SB aspirations.

I like FitzMagic and Heinecke more than I do Hoyer, but it would be a lot to ask them to pick up a new offense in a week or two.

 

[Super Nomario]

He went 7-9 with the worst starting quarterback in all of football two years ago.

It wouldn't surprise me if they stay competitive in that stretch. They may not go 4-2, but they'll probably hang in

Cam could at least do something well (that was one of the best Patriots rushing teams over the past two decades) and Hoyer was a major downgrade in his one start. The last time Hoyer won a game, Mac was in high school.

 

[Shelterdog]

I can't tell how I feel about this argument. Having the GOAT at the most important position to me seems to be an argument for needing high end talent. They also had the GOAT TE.

But I do agree it is not sufficient - those teams always had very solid middle classes of players who made key contributions.

So I think one should look at Brees, Rivers, even Romo and (to a lesser extent) Peyton-there are a lot of very very good quarterbacks, some of whom had a bunch of stars on their teams, and they generally did not reach the heights that Brady did so frequently. High end players especially at quarterback make it so much easier to win but the teams who get byes, make conference championships, stay good for multiple years in a row tend to have a lot of very solid players

 

[slamminsammya]

So I think one should look at Brees, Rivers, even Romo and (to a lesser extent) Peyton-there are a lot of very very good quarterbacks, some of whom had a bunch of stars on their teams, and they generally did not reach the heights that Brady did so frequently. High end players especially at quarterback make it so much easier to win but the teams who get byes, make conference championships, stay good for multiple years in a row tend to have a lot of very solid players

Yeah, I think I would say high end talent is necessary but not sufficient. And you need the solid middle class guys. And I would also say this Patriots team lacks any of that high end talent.

 

[cgori]

Bears, Jets, maybe Colts...

Can't see the Pats beating the Pack in GB. The Lions offense is very good. Probably need to score 28-30 points to beat them; can't see a Hoyer led team doing that. The Browns are loaded at nearly every position but QB, and I'm not sure that Brissett isn't better than Hoyer at this point. Can't see them winning that game either.

I expect to see the Pats run the shit out of the ball with Hoyer under center. If they can do it effectively (and I think we might find they can), the game-shortening aspect of being run-heavy reduces the need to score so many points, I think(?). And the Pats defense can probably keep them in some of these games.

The only downside to this is that if Hoyer is truly useless and teams stack 8 or 9 in the box because there are no shallow cross / dig routes that need to be defended, then maybe they won't be successful running, and then everything will truly fall apart.

 

[OurF'ingCity]

I expect to see the Pats run the shit out of the ball with Hoyer under center. If they can do it effectively (and I think we might find they can), the game-shortening aspect of being run-heavy reduces the need to score so many points, I think(?). And the Pats defense can probably keep them in some of these games.

The only downside to this is that if Hoyer is truly useless and teams stack 8 or 9 in the box because there are no shallow cross / dig routes that need to be defended, then maybe they won't be successful running, and then everything will truly fall apart.

Isn’t this pretty much what happened in the Cam Newton year?

 

[cgori]

Isn’t this pretty much what happened in the Cam Newton year?

Yes, but I think Stevenson is a big addition to their (power) running game that they didn't have when Newton was QB. And, we actually saw them do this against the Bills last year, granted for weather/wind reasons but we saw it work.

 

[Ale Xander]

Yes but the upgrade from Stevenson is more than negated by the downgraded running ability from Newton to Hoyer.

 

[Super Nomario]

I expect to see the Pats run the shit out of the ball with Hoyer under center. If they can do it effectively (and I think we might find they can), the game-shortening aspect of being run-heavy reduces the need to score so many points, I think(?). And the Pats defense can probably keep them in some of these games.

You don't have to score as many raw points in a game with fewer possessions, but there is no less demand on the offense to be efficient, in terms of converting drives to points. If your opponent is going to score 30 points in 12 drives and you can reduce that to 8 drives (and proportionately, 20 points), you still need to put up 20 points and now you only have 8 offensive drives to do it. It demands just as much efficiency (2.5 points per drive, in this case).

It is probably easier for a bad offense whose true talent level is worse than 2.5 points per drive to meet that figure in fewer possessions, just because you introduce more randomness. That's the real advantage here - if you're the worse team, you want shorter games that are more likely to turn on a turnover, a special teams play, a red zone stop, a fourth down conversion, etc.

I think the run game will be good, but not good enough to win games unless the D is lights out. Running the ball is just so much more inefficient than passing it, you almost need to be 2019 Ravens good to match these passing offenses.

Yes but the upgrade from Stevenson is more than negated by the downgraded running ability from Newton to Hoyer.

They also had Thuney and Mason.

 

[jasail]

I don't expect the Pats to tank, it's just not in their DNA. They will try to win games ugly relying on their defense and their run game. They may end up with a Top 10 pick anyway because it's just not enough given their schedule, but they will look to be competitive every week.

 

[Phil Plantier]

@BigSoxFan has their DMs closed, but here's my donation

Spoiler: receipt screen shot

 

[BigSoxFan]

@BigSoxFan has their DMs closed, but here's my donation

Spoiler: receipt screen shot

View attachment 56070

Sorry, had no idea my DMs were shut off. How do I change that? I’m also going to match your contribution because you should have “won” this bet. The performance gave me some hope for this next string of games.

 

[Phil Plantier]

Sorry, had no idea my DMs were shut off. How do I change that? I’m also going to match your contribution because you should have “won” this bet. The performance gave me some hope for this next string of games.

Awesome. Everyone's a winner! Except for the Patriots, but that could change...

I do think Hoyer wins this game for them.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

Awesome. Everyone's a winner! Except for the Patriots, but that could change...

I do think Hoyer wins this game for them.

Maybe, but I don't know how you can say this with any certainty at all. It's just a maybe.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Hoyer is terrible. Do we not remember his performance in KC a couple of years ago? There’s no way you can say they win this game with him.

 

[heavyde050]

Hoyer is terrible. Do we not remember his performance in KC a couple of years ago? There’s no way you can say they win this game with him.

I agree that Hoyer is not very good, but he did lead a good first drive (today).

 

[Garshaparra]

Hoyer is terrible. Do we not remember his performance in KC a couple of years ago? There’s no way you can say they win this game with him.

100% agreed. Hoyer was airmailing wobbly passes to relatively open guys before he got hurt. He stinks. Zappe's sidearm motion is nearly as bad, as he tends to be hugely inaccurate, but he can at least scramble a bit to find receivers, as he did twice today.

So...who's up next?

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I agree that Hoyer is not very good, but he did lead a good first drive (today).

Yes but he was not accurate on that drive and looked like he was throwing a medicine ball. He ran the first 10+ scripted plays and made the most of the field position the running game created. It had very little to do with him.

 

[heavyde050]

Yes but he was not accurate on that drive and looked like he was throwing a medicine ball. He ran the first 10+ scripted plays and made the most of the field position the running game created. It had very little to do with him.

That is fair. But most of the Patriots offense today was set up by the running game. They have two really good running backs.
I don't think Hoyer wins the game for them, I was just saying this wasn't KC level bad Hoyer.

 

[lexrageorge]

May as well see what Zappe is made of next week. Realize that some posters here have an irrational hate for him, but he wasn't terrible today.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Next week, at home, vs the worst defense in the league in the Lions, seems like as optimal a situation as you can get for Zappe, if they want to start him. I imagine they will go to whoever gives them the best chance to win, which could be the rookie depending on how bad the injury to Hoyer is. The next stretch of games seem theoretically winnable, no?

Lions
@ Browns
Bears
@ Jets
Colts
Jets

 

[Phil Plantier]

They have to sign a QB at least for practice this week, right? I don't think any of the usual suspects are around (Dolegala is still in Saskatchewan).

Edit: Mike Glennon is a free agent. Yay?

 

[Ferm Sheller]

May as well see what Zappe is made of next week. Realize that some posters here have an irrational hate for him, but he wasn't terrible today.

Absolutely, there's no benefit to starting Hoyer. I'm not sure that Zappe will ever be starter material, but experience gained now may help him develop into a solid back up QB.