Post-Game Talk: WEEK 17 - Staying Alive - All they have to do is win in Buffalo

KesselBuiltMyHotrod

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
32,588
5,296
MA
We really going to judge a rookie backup on his garbage time stats? I'm not saying Stidham was the future of the franchise but in retrospect it's insane we gave Cam a full season when he could barely pass it past the line.
 

danpantz

Registered User
Mar 31, 2013
7,921
11,165
Ok? You said every time he came in he threw an immediate pick 6. Fact of the matter is playing Cam Newton was dumb. But at least it netted us Mac Jones! They should have let Stidham start and actually play a full football game.

Everytime they put Stiddham in he stunk lol. Lets not try and re-write history now.

We really going to judge a rookie backup on his garbage time stats? I'm not saying Stidham was the future of the franchise but in retrospect it's insane we gave Cam a full season when he could barely pass it past the line.

He wasn’t a rookie, and it wasn’t always garbage time.

Remember the chiefs game Cam had covid?
 

Score8

Registered User
Apr 6, 2017
4,458
4,485
Maybe Josh can hire the rocket scientist next year and solve both teams problems.
 

Johnnyduke

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
22,826
6,783
Everytime they put Stiddham in he stunk lol. Lets not try and re-write history now.



He wasn’t a rookie, and it wasn’t always garbage time.

Remember the chiefs game Cam had covid?
The game where Bryan Hoyer proved he shouldn't be on an NFL field? Nobody is rewriting anything. They could have easily given Stidham a start or two instead of sticking with Cam Newton. It's not a hot take.
 

danpantz

Registered User
Mar 31, 2013
7,921
11,165
The game where Bryan Hoyer proved he shouldn't be on an NFL field? Nobody is rewriting anything. They could have easily given Stidham a start or two instead of sticking with Cam Newton. It's not a hot take.

Brian Hoyer stunk, Cam Newton stunk, Mac Jones stinks, Jarrett Stidham stunk here.

All of these things can be true.
 

KesselBuiltMyHotrod

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
32,588
5,296
MA
Everytime they put Stiddham in he stunk lol. Lets not try and re-write history now.



He wasn’t a rookie, and it wasn’t always garbage time.

Remember the chiefs game Cam had covid?
One of those ints was definitely as a rookie. You mean that KC game Hoyer started? Sorry Stidham struggled against the juggernaut defending Super Bowl champs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnnyduke

Johnnyduke

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
22,826
6,783
Brian Hoyer stunk, Cam Newton stunk, Mac Jones stinks, Jarrett Stidham stunk here.

All of these things can be true.
Ok? And that doesn't change the fact they never gave Stidham a full game and should have. Fact not opinion.
 

danpantz

Registered User
Mar 31, 2013
7,921
11,165
One of those ints was definitely as a rookie. You mean that KC game Hoyer started? Sorry Stidham struggled against the juggernaut Super Bowl champs.

Appeared in 5 games in his second season. Threw interceptions on 7% of his throws.

Ok? And that doesn't change the fact they never gave Stidham a full game and should have. Fact not opinion.

Fact. The year you think he deserved a start he threw a pick on 7% of his throws.
 

Johnnyduke

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
22,826
6,783
Appeared in 5 games in his second season. Threw interceptions on 7% of his throws.



Fact. The year you think he deserved a start he threw a pick on 7% of his throws.
I mean this is going nowhere. They never gave the guy a full game while they allowed Cam Newton to suck ass. But I've gone through this debate enough as I am 99% sure you used to post under a different username.
 

danpantz

Registered User
Mar 31, 2013
7,921
11,165
I mean this is going nowhere. They never gave the guy a full game while they allowed Cam Newton to suck ass. But I've gone through this debate enough as I am 99% sure you used to post under a different username.

Ya you’re wrong. Been posting under the same name coming up on 10 years.

Stidham stunk here, no amount of what ifs is going to change what actually happened when he got on the field.
 

Johnnyduke

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
22,826
6,783
He wasn't good in limited action. The context is who the QB was for the Pats at the time. A QB who sucked just as much but was given all the PT.

I might as well add the context. Cam Newton, a completely washed up QB who was never a fit for the Patriots offense. A QB with zero upside. Absolutely no benefit to the New England Patriots by playing Newton. Unless you're excited that it helped land Mac Jones.
 
Last edited:

danpantz

Registered User
Mar 31, 2013
7,921
11,165
He wasn't good in limited action. The context is who the QB was for the Pats at the time. A QB who sucked just as much but was given all the PT.

I mean I’m not shocked that the former mvp/#1 overall pick got a lot more rope than him. They both stunk here. But one had at least shown something at some point in his career.
Because we had a useless season under Cam Newton where we finished in the worst position possible even though making the playoffs was never likely. You have to give him a start in those circumstances. Instead Hoyer played a game we would have won with average QB play and sucked against a top team.

He was a 3rd year pro the Newton year and shouldn't have been 3rd string. Was drafted early enough that he was kept around in that spot though.

You sound unhinged thinking its OK to start an old guy who can barely throw instead do you also think its a good idea to make a defensive coach the OC or let the HC fill the staff with his kids?

The game Hoyer started they took him out for Stidham because he stunk. Stidham then went and threw two interceptions, one being a pick 6 and completed 38% of his passes.

I’m living in reality of what actually happened when he played. You guys keep bringing up what if’s, I’m talking about things that actually happened on the field.

He threw an interception on 8% of his throws as a Patriot.
 

danpantz

Registered User
Mar 31, 2013
7,921
11,165
Stidham throwns an absolutely terrible interception in overtime that costs them the game.
 
Last edited:

Johnnyduke

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
22,826
6,783
I mean I’m not shocked that the former mvp/#1 overall pick got a lot more rope than him. They both stunk here. But one had at least shown something at some point in his career.
Giving Newton more rope is fine but it was painfully obvious as the season unfolded that it wasn't happening for him. So what was the point of sticking with him? That season was going absolutely nowhere regardless.
I’m living in reality of what actually happened when he played. You guys keep bringing up what if’s
Lol. If saying maybe you should give a guy a week to prepare as the starter and then let him play a full game or two is a what if, so be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lobster57

Lobster57

Registered User
Nov 22, 2006
7,728
5,925
Victoria, BC
I mean I’m not shocked that the former mvp/#1 overall pick got a lot more rope than him. They both stunk here. But one had at least shown something at some point in his career.


The game Hoyer started they took him out for Stidham because he stunk. Stidham then went and threw two interceptions, one being a pick 6 and completed 38% of his passes.

I’m living in reality of what actually happened when he played. You guys keep bringing up what if’s, I’m talking about things that actually happened on the field.

He threw an interception on 8% of his throws as a Patriot.
oh boy.
One of those ints was definitely as a rookie. You mean that KC game Hoyer started? Sorry Stidham struggled against the juggernaut defending Super Bowl champs.
as a 3rd string, mid-game replacement. Definitely a good situation on which to form your entire opinion of a guy
 

danpantz

Registered User
Mar 31, 2013
7,921
11,165
oh boy.

as a 3rd string, mid-game replacement. Definitely a good situation on which to form your entire opinion of a guy

Lol you guys are just ignoring everything i said.

My argument was whenever they put this kid in he wasn’t good. A turnover machine. 8% of his throws in a Patriots uniform got intercepted. After the rookie one it dropped to 6%.

And what do you know, 6% of his throws today were interceptions. Including an absolutely brutal one in overtime that cost his team the game.
 

Lobster57

Registered User
Nov 22, 2006
7,728
5,925
Victoria, BC
Lol you guys are just ignoring everything i said.

My argument was whenever they put this kid in he wasn’t good. A turnover machine. 8% of his throws in a Patriots uniform got intercepted. After the rookie one it dropped to 6%.

And what do you know, 6% of his throws today were interceptions. Including an absolutely brutal one in overtime that cost his team the game.
And you're ignoring what everyone else is saying, you chowderhead.

NO ONE is saying Stidham was the answer, they're saying it was CLEAR AS f***ING CRYSTAL that Newton wasn't. So what was the harm in giving the unknown a REAL chance when what the known is giving you is crap?
 

KesselBuiltMyHotrod

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
32,588
5,296
MA
"cost his team the game" the dude dropped 365, 3 TDs against the best D in the league in his first start and got his crappy team to OT. It was a better performance than anything Mac has done this season. You can argue about what he did here but Stidham was pretty amazing today.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad