And maybe Bill's already decided that Stidham's not the man for the job, which is fine, but in that case, he still should've let Stidham play—to make sure that Stidham's not the man for the job, and because Cam was never more than a one-year experiment to begin with.
If Belichick has already decided that Stidham is not the long term solution at QB, the only reason to play him is to prove to fans that he, Belichick, is correct. Belichick certainly doesn't have to prove it to himself that he is right in not playing Stidham.
Well the buzz on Stidham sure isn't anything like the buzz on a 2nd year QB 20 years ago. From the start of training camp, everyone was talking about Brady's progress in Year 2. In retrospect I think BB might have been chomping at the bit to find a way to get Brady in there. Unfortunately Bledsoe had to sustain a dangerous injury for Brady to get his shot. Of course there is no way BB could have expected/predicted what Brady would become, but he knew Brady had something. Doesn't feel anything like that now.
Cam has given Belichick plenty opportunity to make a switch and BB resists. Doesn't leave me thinking he has much belief in Stidham - at least not yet.
Everything you guys are saying is fine, but Bill would also have known—in addition to Stidham not being great—that the receiving corps is subpar, tight end is a black hole, and the defense can't stop the run. So why throw a Hail Mary on the slim chance that Newton would be his old self and maybe be able to drag a highly flawed, patchwork team to a first-round exit instead of just letting the kids play and develop while at the same time getting a high draft pick? Is Bill so desperate to prove that he was more important than Brady?
Couple things wrong here rick roll.
First, it never matters how bad your team is, you still need to throw the long ball 2-3 times a game. It keeps the opposing safeties honest from sneaking closer and closer to the line of scrimmage and helping stop the run and short passing game. 2nd it sets up.the play action pass tremendously.
Second, it's really, really, really hard to tank in football. You have 53 guys that want to win and be great because there are no guaranteed contracts. They are playing for their next contract, which might not even be in New England. Rosters turnover at a rate higher than 50% each year for a whole lot of teams, especially bad ones. The players couldn't give a crap about the draft and all the rookies that may come in and be great because those rookies may be taking their job.
Simply, tanking isn't a thing in football. Doing so could get people seriously hurt.
Tanking is definitely a thing in football. The way to go about it is just different, and you need to be smarter about it. Trade older veterans for draft capital, let the young guys get a chance to shine, and offload expensive players that aren't game changers. Draft well, and go into free agency and get good players on easy to digest contracts to plug the holes. The Dolphins this year are living proof that this type of tanking can work.
RPG, This is basically what I was thinking of.
Nick, I think you and I are thinking different things in regard to the definition of tanking. I understand that everyone wants to win—for their team and for their next contract—and thus plays hard pretty much all the time, but it's quite possible to play hard and try to win but just not have the talent to win much, like this year's Jets or Bengals. I don't think New England would've been
that bad without Newton, but they probably would've been worse at this point than 6-7, and thus in line for a better draft pick.
This season is, in some ways, a lost season, and I just don't see the point of barely crawling into the playoffs and then likely losing right away, or missing the playoffs but getting too many wins for a high pick, when you could have let all of the young guys play and develop and at the same time pretty much ensure that you'll get at least a fairly high draft pick, especially when you have glaring needs at multiple skill positions (QB, WR, TE).
