Patriots Off-Season News

[Donoghus]

If Brissett is as good as Maye or Daniels, even on day 1, then the Patriots made a terrible pick.

I agree in terms of talent. I also think there could be merit to have Brissett eat up starts with out terrible offensive line and receiving weapons while the young QB learns.

I flip flop back and forth on the matter to be honest. If they are better, should they start?

They should start from day 1 even if they aren't. Any player you take in the top 3 should be a day 1 starter or you've wasted the pick.

I agree that you'd want the QB taken to get game experience in Year 1.  Not sure it has to be Game 1, but eventually.  It isn't true that the pick is a bust if Brissett is a better all-around QB on Day 1.  Drew Bledsoe was better than Brady in Brady's Year 1.

I got a chuckle from the hyperbole there.

[green_bballers13]

If Brissett is as good as Maye or Daniels, even on day 1, then the Patriots made a terrible pick.

This is likely, and its why people are questioning whether they should trade back. Daniels and Maye are not slam dunk prospects. Jamarcus Russell, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, etc, etc. There are plenty of quarterbacks selected at the top of the draft that aren't very good.

David Carr is a great example of a QB that would have benefitted from sitting Year 1. Mahomes and Jordan Love certainly did.

[Goldstar88]

If Brissett is as good as Maye or Daniels, even on day 1, then the Patriots made a terrible pick.

This is likely, and its why people are questioning whether they should trade back. Daniels and Maye are not slam dunk prospects. Jamarcus Russell, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, etc, etc. There are plenty of quarterbacks selected at the top of the draft that aren't very good.

David Carr is a great example of a QB that would have benefitted from sitting Year 1. Mahomes and Jordan Love certainly did.

Also, Brissett has played in Van Pelts offense, so he’s going to have an edge in terms of knowing the offense already. There’s a reason most rookie QB’s don’t have success their first year. What Stroud did last year is uncommon.

[Neurotic Guy]

Looking at at least one more terrible season with best case scenario being the following year getting in the mix. I don’t really care - I watched every game last year and eventually rooted for losses. It was entertaining for me.  I realize some of you hate that but if the Pats have a terrible first half, it’ll be all about draft position again.

[celticsclay]

If Brissett is as good as Maye or Daniels, even on day 1, then the Patriots made a terrible pick.

I agree in terms of talent. I also think there could be merit to have Brissett eat up starts with out terrible offensive line and receiving weapons while the young QB learns.

I flip flop back and forth on the matter to be honest. If they are better, should they start?

They should start from day 1 even if they aren't. Any player you take in the top 3 should be a day 1 starter or you've wasted the pick.

I agree that you'd want the QB taken to get game experience in Year 1.  Not sure it has to be Game 1, but eventually.  It isn't true that the pick is a bust if Brissett is a better all-around QB on Day 1.  Drew Bledsoe was better than Brady in Brady's Year 1.

I got a chuckle from the hyperbole there.

Yeah little silly. Both of the top qbs of the past 20 years didn’t start day one in mahomes and Brady. It’s not some crazy indictment on whoever we draft if they don’t start first game of season with a terrible offensive line with poor weapons.  Also it is not like mahomes was some third round pick he was drafted 10th.

[Moranis]

If Brissett is as good as Maye or Daniels, even on day 1, then the Patriots made a terrible pick.

I agree in terms of talent. I also think there could be merit to have Brissett eat up starts with out terrible offensive line and receiving weapons while the young QB learns.

I flip flop back and forth on the matter to be honest. If they are better, should they start?

They should start from day 1 even if they aren't. Any player you take in the top 3 should be a day 1 starter or you've wasted the pick.

I agree that you'd want the QB taken to get game experience in Year 1.  Not sure it has to be Game 1, but eventually.  It isn't true that the pick is a bust if Brissett is a better all-around QB on Day 1.  Drew Bledsoe was better than Brady in Brady's Year 1.

I got a chuckle from the hyperbole there.

Yeah little silly. Both of the top qbs of the past 20 years didn’t start day one in mahomes and Brady. It’s not some crazy indictment on whoever we draft if they don’t start first game of season with a terrible offensive line with poor weapons.  Also it is not like mahomes was some third round pick he was drafted 10th.

Mahomes and Brady weren't top 3 picks.  There is a big difference between even 10 where Mahomes went and 3 (though you would expect almost every top 10 pick to start immediately).

I'm fairly certain the only recent top 3 pick that hasn't started day 1 has been Trey Lance and years later he is still terrible.  I think if you expanded that to top 5 the same thing holds true.

You've wasted a top 3 pick if the guy isn't starting immediately. 

[Roy H.]

If Brissett is as good as Maye or Daniels, even on day 1, then the Patriots made a terrible pick.

I agree in terms of talent. I also think there could be merit to have Brissett eat up starts with out terrible offensive line and receiving weapons while the young QB learns.

I flip flop back and forth on the matter to be honest. If they are better, should they start?

They should start from day 1 even if they aren't. Any player you take in the top 3 should be a day 1 starter or you've wasted the pick.

I agree that you'd want the QB taken to get game experience in Year 1.  Not sure it has to be Game 1, but eventually.  It isn't true that the pick is a bust if Brissett is a better all-around QB on Day 1.  Drew Bledsoe was better than Brady in Brady's Year 1.

I got a chuckle from the hyperbole there.

Yeah little silly. Both of the top qbs of the past 20 years didn’t start day one in mahomes and Brady. It’s not some crazy indictment on whoever we draft if they don’t start first game of season with a terrible offensive line with poor weapons.  Also it is not like mahomes was some third round pick he was drafted 10th.

Mahomes and Brady weren't top 3 picks.  There is a big difference between even 10 where Mahomes went and 3 (though you would expect almost every top 10 pick to start immediately).

I'm fairly certain the only recent top 3 pick that hasn't started day 1 has been Trey Lance and years later he is still terrible.  I think if you expanded that to top 5 the same thing holds true.

You've wasted a top 3 pick if the guy isn't starting immediately.

I'm not sure that I agree, but the NFL seems to be trending in that direction.  Young and Stroud started immediately.  It's great for Stroud, but might Young have been better with more seasoning?  Hard to say.

It seems like both the Bears and Redskins will start their rookie QBs immediately.  To Chicago's credit, they're giving Williams two good WRs (and maybe one at #9), a veteran center and a good running game.

[mobilija]

If Brissett is as good as Maye or Daniels, even on day 1, then the Patriots made a terrible pick.

I agree in terms of talent. I also think there could be merit to have Brissett eat up starts with out terrible offensive line and receiving weapons while the young QB learns.

I flip flop back and forth on the matter to be honest. If they are better, should they start?

They should start from day 1 even if they aren't. Any player you take in the top 3 should be a day 1 starter or you've wasted the pick.

I agree that you'd want the QB taken to get game experience in Year 1.  Not sure it has to be Game 1, but eventually.  It isn't true that the pick is a bust if Brissett is a better all-around QB on Day 1.  Drew Bledsoe was better than Brady in Brady's Year 1.

I got a chuckle from the hyperbole there.

Yeah little silly. Both of the top qbs of the past 20 years didn’t start day one in mahomes and Brady. It’s not some crazy indictment on whoever we draft if they don’t start first game of season with a terrible offensive line with poor weapons.  Also it is not like mahomes was some third round pick he was drafted 10th.

Mahomes and Brady weren't top 3 picks.  There is a big difference between even 10 where Mahomes went and 3 (though you would expect almost every top 10 pick to start immediately).

I'm fairly certain the only recent top 3 pick that hasn't started day 1 has been Trey Lance and years later he is still terrible.  I think if you expanded that to top 5 the same thing holds true.

You've wasted a top 3 pick if the guy isn't starting immediately.

I’m not going to do the research but….I’m sure there are top 5 picks that didn’t turn out to be day 1 starters (that needed some development) that have turned into good professional players, ie not busts.

Conversely, but untrackable, how many top 5 picks were busts because they forced into being day 1 starters before they were ready?


It’s fair to make an argument that top 5 picks are poor choices if they don’t turn out to be day 1 starters but that’s not the same thing as a bust.

[celticsclay]

If Brissett is as good as Maye or Daniels, even on day 1, then the Patriots made a terrible pick.

I agree in terms of talent. I also think there could be merit to have Brissett eat up starts with out terrible offensive line and receiving weapons while the young QB learns.

I flip flop back and forth on the matter to be honest. If they are better, should they start?

They should start from day 1 even if they aren't. Any player you take in the top 3 should be a day 1 starter or you've wasted the pick.

I agree that you'd want the QB taken to get game experience in Year 1.  Not sure it has to be Game 1, but eventually.  It isn't true that the pick is a bust if Brissett is a better all-around QB on Day 1.  Drew Bledsoe was better than Brady in Brady's Year 1.

I got a chuckle from the hyperbole there.

Yeah little silly. Both of the top qbs of the past 20 years didn’t start day one in mahomes and Brady. It’s not some crazy indictment on whoever we draft if they don’t start first game of season with a terrible offensive line with poor weapons.  Also it is not like mahomes was some third round pick he was drafted 10th.

Mahomes and Brady weren't top 3 picks.  There is a big difference between even 10 where Mahomes went and 3 (though you would expect almost every top 10 pick to start immediately).

I'm fairly certain the only recent top 3 pick that hasn't started day 1 has been Trey Lance and years later he is still terrible.  I think if you expanded that to top 5 the same thing holds true.

You've wasted a top 3 pick if the guy isn't starting immediately.

I’m not going to do the research but….I’m sure there are top 5 picks that didn’t turn out to be day 1 starters (that needed some development) that have turned into good professional players, ie not busts.

Conversely, but untrackable, how many top 5 picks were busts because they forced into being day 1 starters before they were ready?


It’s fair to make an argument that top 5 picks are poor choices if they don’t turn out to be day 1 starters but that’s not the same thing as a bust.

I mean Eli, Carson Palmer are famous examples along with mahomes. Tua started the season behind Fitzpatrick. I don’t feel like digging in but there are tons of historical examples (though I don’t think what happened with Palmer and Eli would happen today). But hurts and love did not start their rookie years and are considered above average qbs in the league. I will probably add more players to this post when I have more time. I agree with Roy if you have a terrible line it could be smart to not throw a guy into the fray week one. For a guy that infamously argued a young quarterbacks ego is so fragile they can be destroyed by not throwing in a blizzard the idea you have to start a guy behind a terrible offensive line and no weapons reeks of skip Bayless.

[Moranis]

If Brissett is as good as Maye or Daniels, even on day 1, then the Patriots made a terrible pick.

I agree in terms of talent. I also think there could be merit to have Brissett eat up starts with out terrible offensive line and receiving weapons while the young QB learns.

I flip flop back and forth on the matter to be honest. If they are better, should they start?

They should start from day 1 even if they aren't. Any player you take in the top 3 should be a day 1 starter or you've wasted the pick.

I agree that you'd want the QB taken to get game experience in Year 1.  Not sure it has to be Game 1, but eventually.  It isn't true that the pick is a bust if Brissett is a better all-around QB on Day 1.  Drew Bledsoe was better than Brady in Brady's Year 1.

I got a chuckle from the hyperbole there.

Yeah little silly. Both of the top qbs of the past 20 years didn’t start day one in mahomes and Brady. It’s not some crazy indictment on whoever we draft if they don’t start first game of season with a terrible offensive line with poor weapons.  Also it is not like mahomes was some third round pick he was drafted 10th.

Mahomes and Brady weren't top 3 picks.  There is a big difference between even 10 where Mahomes went and 3 (though you would expect almost every top 10 pick to start immediately).

I'm fairly certain the only recent top 3 pick that hasn't started day 1 has been Trey Lance and years later he is still terrible.  I think if you expanded that to top 5 the same thing holds true.

You've wasted a top 3 pick if the guy isn't starting immediately.

I'm not sure that I agree, but the NFL seems to be trending in that direction.  Young and Stroud started immediately.  It's great for Stroud, but might Young have been better with more seasoning?  Hard to say.

It seems like both the Bears and Redskins will start their rookie QBs immediately.  To Chicago's credit, they're giving Williams two good WRs (and maybe one at #9), a veteran center and a good running game.

There is a reason I said recent, it is the way the league is going especially with QB's.  I mean look at the SB QB's aside from the all time greats i.e Brady and Mahomes there have either been journeyman like Jimmy G or rookie contract guys (Stafford isnt a journeyman, but he also isnt an all time great).  The dollars just get so big in year 6, you are wasting a window if they don't start immediately.  Now maybe that changes some as guys like Allen, Jackson, etc. are in 2nd contracts, but as of now the trend the last 10+ years have either one of the 5 best QB's in the history of the sport (that in my view also covers Peyton) or have a guy that isn't paid anywhere close to top dollar with Stafford as basically the only exception. That goes back to the Giants last win in 2012 and includes both the winner and loser.  And most of those non all time great QB teams, the QB was on a rookie contract still (including the last 4 losers).  You need to get that 1st year out of the way to maximize that year 2 jump and get that clock ticking while the guy isn't paid huge dollars because we see a lot what happens when teams start paying their QB massive money. The talent just isn't as great and it is really hard to sustain multiple seasons of contention (unless you have Mahomes, Brady, or Peyton).  I mean even Rodgers hasn't been back to the SB after that initial one.  The Seahawks went to 2 straight and didn't come all that close after they paid Russ.

[celticsclay]

If Brissett is as good as Maye or Daniels, even on day 1, then the Patriots made a terrible pick.

I agree in terms of talent. I also think there could be merit to have Brissett eat up starts with out terrible offensive line and receiving weapons while the young QB learns.

I flip flop back and forth on the matter to be honest. If they are better, should they start?

They should start from day 1 even if they aren't. Any player you take in the top 3 should be a day 1 starter or you've wasted the pick.

I agree that you'd want the QB taken to get game experience in Year 1.  Not sure it has to be Game 1, but eventually.  It isn't true that the pick is a bust if Brissett is a better all-around QB on Day 1.  Drew Bledsoe was better than Brady in Brady's Year 1.

I got a chuckle from the hyperbole there.

Yeah little silly. Both of the top qbs of the past 20 years didn’t start day one in mahomes and Brady. It’s not some crazy indictment on whoever we draft if they don’t start first game of season with a terrible offensive line with poor weapons.  Also it is not like mahomes was some third round pick he was drafted 10th.

Mahomes and Brady weren't top 3 picks.  There is a big difference between even 10 where Mahomes went and 3 (though you would expect almost every top 10 pick to start immediately).

I'm fairly certain the only recent top 3 pick that hasn't started day 1 has been Trey Lance and years later he is still terrible.  I think if you expanded that to top 5 the same thing holds true.

You've wasted a top 3 pick if the guy isn't starting immediately.

I'm not sure that I agree, but the NFL seems to be trending in that direction.  Young and Stroud started immediately.  It's great for Stroud, but might Young have been better with more seasoning?  Hard to say.

It seems like both the Bears and Redskins will start their rookie QBs immediately.  To Chicago's credit, they're giving Williams two good WRs (and maybe one at #9), a veteran center and a good running game.

There is a reason I said recent, it is the way the league is going especially with QB's.  I mean look at the SB QB's aside from the all time greats i.e Brady and Mahomes there have either been journeyman like Jimmy G or rookie contract guys (Stafford isnt a journeyman, but he also isnt an all time great).  The dollars just get so big in year 6, you are wasting a window if they don't start immediately.  Now maybe that changes some as guys like Allen, Jackson, etc. are in 2nd contracts, but as of now the trend the last 10+ years have either one of the 5 best QB's in the history of the sport (that in my view also covers Peyton) or have a guy that isn't paid anywhere close to top dollar with Stafford as basically the only exception. That goes back to the Giants last win in 2012 and includes both the winner and loser.  And most of those non all time great QB teams, the QB was on a rookie contract still (including the last 4 losers).  You need to get that 1st year out of the way to maximize that year 2 jump and get that clock ticking while the guy isn't paid huge dollars because we see a lot what happens when teams start paying their QB massive money. The talent just isn't as great and it is really hard to sustain multiple seasons of contention (unless you have Mahomes, Brady, or Peyton).  I mean even Rodgers hasn't been back to the SB after that initial one.  The Seahawks went to 2 straight and didn't come all that close after they paid Russ.

Great call on Jackson. So yeah arguably two best qbs in league didn’t start their first game. Definitely nothing to worry about if our guy has a bridge qb like Flacco with Jackson. I appreciate you coming full circle on this. Tommy point

[SparzWizard]

Sounds like a few former Patriot players stepping up to defend Belichick's coaching after watching the Patriots Dynasty documentary.

Vince Wilfork and Gilly Lock to name a few. Was it a hit job by The Kraft Family to defame Belichick?

I do know the Kraft is responsible for the failure of securing certain players. Bill also shares the same responsibility as well. Right now, I only support Brady, the players, and Mayo. Not Belichick and definitely not Kraft.

[Neurotic Guy]

Sounds like a few former Patriot players stepping up to defend Belichick's coaching after watching the Patriots Dynasty documentary.

Vince Wilfork and Gilly Lock to name a few. Was it a hit job by The Kraft Family to defame Belichick?

I do know the Kraft is responsible for the failure of securing certain players. Bill also shares the same responsibility as well. Right now, I only support Brady, the players, and Mayo. Not Belichick and definitely not Kraft.

It was a triumvirate - a triumvirate with unequal contributions. Brady with a different owner and different coach - depending on who they were - probably could have achieved great success.  Kraft and Belichick without Brady wouldn’t have had near the near the same level of success.  However, the three at that time were all contributors to an unprecedented run together.  Could it have been longer?  Yes, maybe another few years. Could the era have  been even more successful?  Of course it’s possible, but I doubt it. 

It was amazing, and any negativity emanating from the documentary or the subsequent analysis will never sour me on the joy of the incredible run with Bob, Bill, and Brady.

[Phantom255x]

Sounds like a few former Patriot players stepping up to defend Belichick's coaching after watching the Patriots Dynasty documentary.

Vince Wilfork and Gilly Lock to name a few. Was it a hit job by The Kraft Family to defame Belichick?

I do know the Kraft is responsible for the failure of securing certain players. Bill also shares the same responsibility as well. Right now, I only support Brady, the players, and Mayo. Not Belichick and definitely not Kraft.

It was a triumvirate - a triumvirate with unequal contributions. Brady with a different owner and different coach - depending on who they were - probably could have achieved great success.  Kraft and Belichick without Brady wouldn’t have had near the near the same level of success.  However, the three at that time were all contributors to an unprecedented run together.  Could it have been longer?  Yes, maybe another few years. Could the era have  been even more successful?  Of course it’s possible, but I doubt it. 

It was amazing, and any negativity emanating from the documentary or the subsequent analysis will never sour me on the joy of the incredible run with Bob, Bill, and Brady.

This is all true.

What's also true is that the documentary itself was clearly a hit piece against Belichick BY Robert Kraft. I'm glad many former and current Pats players are speaking out about it. I was one of those who said Belichick had to go and his time here was done, but like you said that doesn't discount what Belichick accomplished and did during the dynasty as well. It was a jerk move by Kraft. Kraft also trying to basically act like he knew all the right moves and that he was never involved in any of the "bad" moves during the dynasty was also complete baloney. Give me a break with that 

[Goldstar88]

I wonder if Kraft Dynasty LLC will be listed in the credits. 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39955777/how-patriots-legend-bill-belichick-end-nfl-job